Suchergebnisse

SUMMARY: The people of Ukraine, a country of 44 million, have suffered a widespread Russian Federation-led military invasion beginning 24 February, 2022, resulting in increasing loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and deterioration of services. The conflict has kicked off a humanitarian crisis that is rapidly devolving into a catastrophe, with threats of massive numbers of internally displaced persons (IDP) and refugees, significant civilian deaths from indiscriminate aerial and rocket bombardment of urban areas by Russian military forces, and long term political and economic instability. In the short term, individual mental and physical trauma, and dismantling of communities and families may become widespread even in areas that see limited military impacts in the coming days. The rapidly changing environment, uncertainty in outcome and resolution of the conflict, and military threats will make provision of humanitarian relief difficult, necessitating a robust near-term stabilization of the security situation. To this end, we recommend immediate establishment of a North Atlantic Threat Organization (NATO)-led No Fly Zone (NFZ), humanitarian corridors for relief and movement displaced persons, and long term humanitarian commitment to the people of Ukraine. RECOMMENDATIONS: We describe the humanitarian and military rationale for establishing a NATO-led No Fly Zone to prevent Russian air attacks inside Ukraine, and speed an end to the conflict. The ultimate goal of US/NATO direct actions described in this commentary is complete withdrawal of Russian-backed forces from Ukraine and repatriation of Ukrainian territory. Only a resolution where Russian Federation withdraws its forces will facilitate longer term regional security. Moreover, continuation of economic sanctions, appropriate reparations, and referral of evidence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution of war crimes against civilians are recommended. This commentary will be used as a resource and reference material for political and ...

SUMMARY: The people of Ukraine, a country of 44 million, have suffered a widespread Russian Federation-led military invasion beginning 24 February, 2022, resulting in increasing loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and deterioration of services. The conflict has kicked off a humanitarian crisis that is rapidly devolving into a catastrophe, with threats of massive numbers of internally displaced persons (IDP) and refugees, significant civilian deaths from indiscriminate aerial and rocket bombardment of urban areas by Russian military forces, and long term political and economic instability. In the short term, individual mental and physical trauma, and dismantling of communities and families may become widespread even in areas that see limited military impacts in the coming days. The rapidly changing environment, uncertainty in outcome and resolution of the conflict, and military threats will make provision of humanitarian relief difficult, necessitating a robust near-term stabilization of the security situation. To this end, we recommend immediate establishment of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led No Fly Zone (NFZ), humanitarian corridors for relief and movement displaced persons, and long term humanitarian commitment to the people of Ukraine. RECOMMENDATIONS: We describe the humanitarian and military rationale for establishing a NATO-led No Fly Zone to prevent Russian air attacks inside Ukraine, and speed an end to the conflict. The ultimate goal of US/NATO direct actions described in this commentary is complete withdrawal of Russian-backed forces from Ukraine and repatriation of Ukrainian territory. Only a resolution where Russian Federation withdraws its forces will facilitate longer term regional security. Moreover, continuation of economic sanctions, appropriate reparations, and referral of evidence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution of war crimes against civilians are recommended. This commentary will be used as a resource and reference material for political and ...

SUMMARY: The people of Ukraine, a country of 44 million, have suffered a widespread Russian Federation-led military invasion beginning 24 February, 2022, resulting in increasing loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and deterioration of services. The conflict has kicked off a humanitarian crisis that is rapidly devolving into a catastrophe, with threats of massive numbers of internally displaced persons (IDP) and refugees, significant civilian deaths from indiscriminate aerial and rocket bombardment of urban areas by Russian military forces, and long term political and economic instability. In the short term, individual mental and physical trauma, and dismantling of communities and families may become widespread even in areas that see limited military impacts in the coming days. The rapidly changing environment, uncertainty in outcome and resolution of the conflict, and military threats will make provision of humanitarian relief difficult, necessitating a robust near-term stabilization of the security situation. To this end, we recommend immediate establishment of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led No Fly Zone (NFZ), humanitarian corridors for relief and movement displaced persons, and long term humanitarian commitment to the people of Ukraine. RECOMMENDATIONS: We describe the humanitarian and military rationale for establishing a NATO-led No Fly Zone to prevent Russian air attacks inside Ukraine, and speed an end to the conflict. The ultimate goal of US/NATO direct actions described in this commentary is complete withdrawal of Russian-backed forces from Ukraine and repatriation of Ukrainian territory. Only a resolution where Russian Federation withdraws its forces will facilitate longer term regional security. Moreover, continuation of economic sanctions, appropriate reparations, and referral of evidence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution of war crimes against civilians are recommended. This commentary will be used as a resource and reference material for political and ...

SUMMARY: The people of Ukraine, a country of 44 million, have suffered a widespread Russian Federation-led military invasion beginning 24 February, 2022, resulting in increasing loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and deterioration of services. The conflict has kicked off a humanitarian crisis that is rapidly devolving into a catastrophe, with threats of massive numbers of internally displaced persons (IDP) and refugees, significant civilian deaths from indiscriminate aerial and rocket bombardment of urban areas by Russian military forces, and long term political and economic instability. In the short term, individual mental and physical trauma, and dismantling of communities and families may become widespread even in areas that see limited military impacts in the coming days. The rapidly changing environment, uncertainty in outcome and resolution of the conflict, and military threats will make provision of humanitarian relief difficult, necessitating a robust near-term stabilization of the security situation. To this end, we recommend immediate establishment of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led No Fly Zone (NFZ), humanitarian corridors for relief and movement displaced persons, and long term humanitarian commitment to the people of Ukraine. RECOMMENDATIONS: We describe the humanitarian and military rationale for establishing a NATO-led No Fly Zone to prevent Russian air attacks inside Ukraine, and speed an end to the conflict. The ultimate goal of US/NATO direct actions described in this commentary is complete withdrawal of Russian-backed forces from Ukraine and repatriation of Ukrainian territory. Only a resolution where Russian Federation withdraws its forces will facilitate longer term regional security. Moreover, continuation of economic sanctions, appropriate reparations, and referral of evidence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution of war crimes against civilians are recommended. This commentary will be used as a resource and reference material for political and ...

Coronaviruses represent a significant number of species, variable and genetically plastic (in terms of mutations and recombination) group of RNA-containing viruses. The instability of the viral genome, and, as a consequence, the divergence of the antigenic structure of these pathogens explain the necessity of evidence-based in-depth studies of the ecology and biological properties of coronaviruses, including the novel pathogen SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of potential anthropopathogenicity in animal coronaviruses, they can serve as an effective model for testing the effectiveness of disinfectants, antiviral therapies and vaccines designed to control and contain the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sober comparing ecological and biological properties of animal and human coronaviruses may lead to a conclusion that a promising area for the development of specific prevention of SARS-CoV-2 spread is the development of candidate drugs based on recombinant surface and internal antigens of the pathogen. Therefore, SARS-CoV-2 cannot be regarded as an unprecedented viral threat to humanity whose properties cannot be but a mystery to science and society. This deduction can be never heard in TV news on prime world TV channels, often government-sponsored. The SARS-CoV-2-related "news"-like stories for general population are ideologically prepared, checked and double-checked. They contain several permanent narratives about the novel virus with key phrases aimed at influencing people's fears and raising their anxiety. Some of key phrases are "second wave," "excessive mortality," "Wuhan," "heaps of coffins," "protective costumes," "masks and gloves," "lockdowns." SARS-CoV-2 is ideologically depicted as the worst "plague" causing enormous number of victims. Moreover, ideologically the novel virus is described as "unknown," "mysterious," "unseen heretofore." Such phrases are common for TV news, talk shows, Internet communication. But even more importantly, they also penetrate academic discourse. The virus may be more or less dangerous, and ...

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated ...

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated cattle diseases and will further assist in the development and implementation of output-based standards.

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in < 25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good ", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair. " Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated ...

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated cattle diseases and will further assist in the development and implementation of output-based standards.

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated ...

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated cattle diseases and will further assist in the development and implementation of output-based standards.

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated cattle diseases and will further assist in the development and implementation of output-based standards.

The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)," aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status ...

The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control), " aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min-max: 1-13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status ...

The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)," aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min-max: 1-13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.