The main purpose of the study is to discuss the inter-state and intra-state conflicts and the main problem areas in the geography extending from China to Eurasia. The book consists of eighteen chapters, all written by senior professors and associate professors.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Examining the ongoing processes of migration in Europe and beyondCase studies focusing on Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and South AmericaIntegrates issues of current migration and boundary-making processesVarious experts discussing social and political factors pertaining to current dynamics of migration and boundary-making in different cultural settingsSociological and political analyses of current trends in transnational migration and reborderingBrings together studies from different continentsThis book deals with the ongoing processes of migration and boundary-(re)making in Europe and other parts of the world. It takes stock of recent and hitherto unpublished research on the refugee crisis in Europe, migration dynamics in the Middle East and migration flows in Africa and Latin America, specifically in relation to their political, social and cultural framing. In particular, chapters in this collection focus on newer cases of transnational migration and their socio-political implications. Alongside the refugee and migrant crisis in Europe, which can be seen as one of the most divisive political issues in recent European history, new patterns of migration and re-bordering can also be seen across Europe, the Middle East and beyond. These include both the rise of anti-immigration populism within the nation-states and practices of discouraging migration at the regional level such as the EU
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Frontmatter -- Contents -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The Religio-political Nexus: Historical and Comparative Reflections -- 3 Politics and Religion in a Global Age -- 4 Comparative Secularisms and the Politics of Modernity -- 5 Europe in the Global Rise of Religious Nationalism -- 6 The European Union's Civil Religion in the Making? -- 7 Democracy, Secularism and Islam in Turkey -- 8 Orthodox Religion and Politics in Post-Soviet Russia -- 9 Religion and Politics, Church and State in Chinese History -- 10 Religion and the State in Contemporary Japan -- 11 Arab Revolutions and Political Islam: A Structural Approach -- 12 Beyond Post-secularism: Religion in Political Analysis (Review Article) -- Notes on the Contributors -- Index
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Tables and Figures -- Notes on the Contributors -- Preface -- Foreword -- PART I Theorizing Multiculturalism -- 1 The Twilight of Multiculturalism? Findings from across Europe -- 2 Contemporary Citizenship and Diversity in Europe: The Place of Multiculturalism -- 3 The Challenge of Multiculturalism: Political Philosophy and the Question of Diversity -- PART II Multiculturalism's Pioneers and (Ex-)enthusiasts -- 4 The 'Civic Re-balancing' of British Multiculturalism, and Beyond . . . -- 5 The Dutch Multicultural Myth -- 6 Immigrant Integration and Multiculturalism in Belgium -- 7 The Political Dynamics of Multiculturalism in Sweden -- PART III Multicultural Societies without Multiculturalism? -- 8 Public Debates and Public Opinion on Multiculturalism in Germany -- 9 Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou? -- 10 Multiculturalism Italian Style: Soft or Weak Recognition? -- 11 Redefining a (Mono)cultural Nation: Political Discourse against Multiculturalism in Contemporary France -- PART IV Multiculturalism's Future Converts? -- 12 Poland: Multiculturalism in the Making? -- 13 Multinationalism, Mononationalism or Transnationalism in Russia? -- 14 Multiculturalism and Minorities in Turkey -- PART V Conclusion -- 15 Multiculturalism: Symptom, Cause or Solution? -- Index
Objective Vaccination is the most efficient way to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but vaccination rates remain below the target level in most countries. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the vaccination status of hospitalized patients and compare two different booster vaccine protocols. Setting Inoculation in Turkey began in mid-January 2021. Sinovac was the only available vaccine until April 2021, when BioNTech was added. At the beginning of July 2021, the government offered a third booster dose to healthcare workers and people aged > 50 years who had received the two doses of Sinovac. Of the participants who received a booster, most chose BioNTech as the third dose. Methods We collected data from 25 hospitals in 16 cities. Patients hospitalized between August 1 and 10, 2021, were included and categorized into eight groups according to their vaccination status. Results We identified 1401 patients, of which 529 (37.7%) were admitted to intensive care units. Nearly half (47.8%) of the patients were not vaccinated, and those with two doses of Sinovac formed the second largest group (32.9%). Hospitalizations were lower in the group which received 2 doses of Sinovac and a booster dose of BioNTech than in the group which received 3 doses of Sinovac. Conclusion Effective vaccinations decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations. The efficacy after two doses of Sinovac may decrease over time; however, it may be enhanced by adding a booster dose. Moreover, unvaccinated patients may be persuaded to undergo vaccination.
Objective Vaccination is the most efficient way to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but vaccination rates remain below the target level in most countries. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the vaccination status of hospitalized patients and compare two different booster vaccine protocols. Setting Inoculation in Turkey began in mid-January 2021. Sinovac was the only available vaccine until April 2021, when BioNTech was added. At the beginning of July 2021, the government offered a third booster dose to healthcare workers and people aged > 50 years who had received the two doses of Sinovac. Of the participants who received a booster, most chose BioNTech as the third dose. Methods We collected data from 25 hospitals in 16 cities. Patients hospitalized between August 1 and 10, 2021, were included and categorized into eight groups according to their vaccination status. Results We identified 1401 patients, of which 529 (37.7%) were admitted to intensive care units. Nearly half (47.8%) of the patients were not vaccinated, and those with two doses of Sinovac formed the second largest group (32.9%). Hospitalizations were lower in the group which received 2 doses of Sinovac and a booster dose of BioNTech than in the group which received 3 doses of Sinovac. Conclusion Effective vaccinations decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations. The efficacy after two doses of Sinovac may decrease over time; however, it may be enhanced by adding a booster dose. Moreover, unvaccinated patients may be persuaded to undergo vaccination.
FMSR (Austria) ; FNRS (Belgium) ; FWO (Belgium) ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) ; MES (Bulgaria) ; CERN (China) ; CAS (China) ; MoST (China) ; NSFC (China) ; COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) ; MSES (Croatia) ; RPF (Cyprus) ; Academy of Sciences and NICPB (Estonia) ; Academy of Finland, ME, and HIP (Finland) ; CEA (France) ; CNRS/IN2P3 (France) ; BMBF (Germany) ; DFG (Germany) ; HGF (Germany) ; GSRT (Greece) ; OTKA (Hungary) ; NKTH (Hungary) ; DAE (India) ; DST (India) ; IPM (Iran) ; SFI (Ireland) ; INFN (Italy) ; NRF (Korea) ; LAS (Lithuania) ; CINVESTAV (Mexico) ; CONACYT (Mexico) ; SEP (Mexico) ; UASLP-FAI (Mexico) ; PAEC (Pakistan) ; SCSR (Poland) ; FCT (Portugal) ; JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) ; MST (Russia) ; MAE (Russia) ; MSTDS (Serbia) ; MICINN ; CPAN (Spain) ; Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland) ; NSC (Taipei) ; TUBITAK ; TAEK (Turkey) ; STFC (United Kingdom) ; DOE (USA) ; NSF (USA) ; European Union ; Leventis Foundation ; A. P. Sloan Foundation ; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation ; Measurements of inclusive charged-hadron transverse-momentum and pseudorapidity distributions are presented for proton-proton collisions at root s = 0.9 and 2.36 TeV. The data were collected with the CMS detector during the LHC commissioning in December 2009. For non-single-diffractive interactions, the average charged-hadron transverse momentum is measured to be 0.46 +/- 0.01 (stat.) +/- 0.01 (syst.) GeV/c at 0.9 TeV and 0.50 +/- 0.01 (stat.) +/- 0.01 (syst.) GeV/c at 2.36 TeV, for pseudorapidities between -2.4 and +2.4. At these energies, the measured pseudorapidity densities in the central region, dN(ch)/d eta vertical bar(vertical bar eta vertical bar and pp collisions. The results at 2.36 TeV represent the highest-energy measurements at a particle collider to date.
FMSR (Austria) ; Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) ; FWO (Belgium) ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) ; MES (Bulgaria) ; CERN (China) ; Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) ; MoST (China) ; National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) ; COLCIEN-CIAS (Colombia) ; MSES (Croatia) ; Research Promotion Foundation (RPF) ; Academy of Sciences (Estonia) ; National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics (NICPB) ; Academy of Finland ; ME (Finland) ; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP) ; Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) ; Institut national de physique nucléaire et de physique des particules (IN2P3/CNRS) ; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) ; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) ; HGF (Germany) ; General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) ; Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) ; NKTH (Hungary) ; Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) - India ; Department of Science and Technology (DST) - India ; Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM) ; Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) ; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) ; National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) ; LAS (Lithuania) ; Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (CINVESTAV) ; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) ; SEP (Mexico) ; UASLP-FAI (Mexico) ; Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) ; SCSR (Poland) ; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) ; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) ; MST (Russia) ; MAE (Russia) ; MSTDS (Serbia) ; MICINN (Spain) ; Centro Nacional de Física de Partículas, Astropartículas y Nuclear (CPAN) ; Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland) ; NSC (Taipei) ; Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) ; Türkiye Atom Enerjisi Kurumu (TAEK) ; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) ; DOE (USA) ; National Science Foundation (NSF) - USA ; European Union ; Leventis Foundation ; A. P. Sloan Foundation ; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation ; During autumn 2008, the Silicon Strip Tracker was operated with the full CMS experiment in a comprehensive test, in the presence of the 3.8 T magnetic field produced by the CMS superconducting solenoid. Cosmic ray muons were detected in the muon chambers and used to trigger the readout of all CMS sub-detectors. About 15 million events with a muon in the tracker were collected. The efficiency of hit and track reconstruction were measured to be higher than 99% and consistent with expectations from Monte Carlo simulation. This article details the commissioning and performance of the Silicon Strip Tracker with cosmic ray muons.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.