Courtesy Image An illustration of the coronavirus provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
ALPENA Residents can get free COVID-19 tests and vaccinations tomorrow at the Alpena County Fairgrounds, thanks to District Health Department No. 4.
No appointments are needed for the event, to be held from 10 a.m to 3 p.m.
Participants will be asked but not required to share insurance information and identification.
Health officials will text or email results, with rapid results available within 30 to 45 minutes and other results available within two to three days. All three approved vaccination brands will be available, but participants will not be able to access pediatric vaccines for children younger than one year.
Today's breaking news and more in your inbox
In a recent study posted to the Research Square* preprint server, researchers demonstrated that impaired type I interferon (IFN-I) immunity is associated with increasing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity.
The response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is highly variable, resulting in diverse clinical outcomes, ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe disease and even death. A better understanding of such heterogeneity in responses to IFN-based COVID-19 treatment could help identify alternative therapeutic strategies.
Studies have shown that while blood type I interferon (IFN-I) responses are critical in early acute infection, they get impaired preceding clinical worsening of COVID-19. Hence, researchers have observed a dichotomous clinical response to IFN-I-based treatments in late-stage COVID-19.
Consistent with these observations, studies have also identified mutations in genetic loci that govern toll-like receptor (TLR)3- and interferon regulatory factor (IRF)7-dependent IFN-I immunity. Likewise, autoantibodies against IFN, IFN, or IFN, and TLR7 pathway are critical in conferring early immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, exogenous IFN-I treatment does not improve clinical outcomes for COVID-19.
Here, it is also important to note the importance of deploying sensitive immunoassays when studying type I IFN directly from patient samples. As is known, IFN protein levels remain below the detection limits of conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Luminex assays. More importantly, plasma IFN levels at the time of patient sampling do not depict how patients cells respond to viral exposure.
In the current study, researchers enrolled healthy controls and SARS-CoV-2 infected participants at St. Jamess Hospital in Dublin, Ireland, between March and June 2020. The control group comprised 61 healthy individuals who matched the study cohort in age, 5 years.
At the time of enrollment, the team assigned all the study participants with disease severity grades based on hospital admission and supplemental oxygen requirements. The patients who did not require hospitalization were classified as moderately ill, while those hospitalized and given supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula were considered severe. Those classified as critical required more than six liters of oxygen per minute, delivered via high-flow nasal oxygen or a venturi mask.
The team characterized all 13 IFN-alpha subtypes, especially IFN2 proteins using highly sensitive assays, IFN function, interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs), and autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-I. The researchers also selected a patient subset and stimulated their whole blood samples with relevant viral antagonists to better assess the functionality of their immune system to external stimuli. Likewise, they obtained plasma samples from 342 and 212 for cytokine and autoantibody analysis, respectively. Further, they used plasma samples from a small subset of 31 patients for cellular phenotyping.
The authors observed multiple disturbances in the IFN-I response with increasing COVID-19 severity. Late stimulation with exogenous IFN-I did not benefit patients; moreover, it compromised any apparent clinical benefit of viral agonists. Notably, IFN secretion was more disturbed than IFN, which was unanticipated given its low levels in patient plasma. This finding further indicated the challenges in accurately detecting and quantifying IFN in the blood.
Gyros assay identified four male patients as anti-IFN autoantibody-positive in the hospitalized group, with two moderately, one severely, and one critically ill. Since the majority of patients remained negative for anti-IFN autoantibodies, this factor could not have driven severe disease in patients.
The authors also observed that stimulating the whole blood from hospitalized COVID-19 patients with ex vivo IFN-I induced a non-canonical inflammatory response. Further, TLR gene expression data from whole blood revealed similar TLR7 expression in all groups, lower TLR3 expression, and higher TLR4 and TLR8 expression in hospitalized patients. In addition, the authors found eight additional cytokines with significant differences in hospitalized patients, primarily after TLR3 stimulation.
The IFN-I response to stimulations, including polyinosinic: polycytidylic acid (Poly: IC), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and R848 (a TLR7/8 agonist) was disturbed in critically ill patients. In fact, Poly: IC stimulation significantly reduced the IFN response in moderate and severe disease groups but reduced after R848- and LPS-stimulation in the hospitalized groups.
The blunting of broad IFN responses in severe COVID-19 patients remains unexplained. Studies showed that this phenotype was not attributable to SARS-CoV-2 interference with the hosts immunity. Consequently, with increasing severity, pDCs remained capable of producing IFN intracellularly. Future works should investigate the functionality of intracellular pathways in cells isolated from severe COVID-19 patients. It could help better understand this phenotype and provide targets for new treatment strategies.
The study highlighted the critical role IFN-I mediated immunity plays in dictating COVID-19 outcomes. Other studies have implicated IFN in long COVID-19, thus further emphasizing the need to understand the regulation of IFN-I during SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The current study also identified two main reasons for an impaired IFN-I response in severe COVID-19. They showed decreased circulating plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC) and dysregulated monocytes which secreted fewer IFN. Second, IFN-I stimulation of leukocytes promoted an inflammatory response in severe COVID-19 patients but not in moderately ill patients.
Furthermore, physiological concentrations of IFN proteins are often below pg/mL levels. The study results, therefore, highlighted the significance of using sensitive assays to measure circulating IFN levels in severe COVID-19 patients. The authors also observed differences in IFN2 protein plasma levels between moderately and severely ill COVID-19 patients.
As new experimental tools become available, they will help the researchers fully understand the functions of all 13 IFN subtypes in COVID-19 patients, which might also be relevant for other viral infections. Most importantly, clinical studies should test IFN-I intervention strategies early, i.e., before the disease symptoms appear, and target them toward patients with known risk factors.
Research Square publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.
Background
The number of residency applications submitted by medical students has risen at an alarming rate, causing increased cost of applications and subsequent interview travel. These both contribute to increased cost for medical students. In light of these concerns, specialty governing bodies have proposed ideas to fight these trends including, application limits, interview limits, using a preference signaling system, and continuing virtual interviews. During the Covid-19 pandemic, all residency interviews were performed virtually, essentially making travel expenses negligible. However, this created a new concern with regards to assessing program and applicant compatibility, as compared to in-person interactions and did nothing to combat the increases in application numbers.Therefore, we want to critically assess the effects of virtual interviews on number of applications submitted, number of interview invites received, and number of interviews attended. We also aim to analyze how applicants viewed the virtual process.
600 medical students were eligible to participate. 456 students from years 2018-2020 were eligible to be surveyed following the NRMP match. 144 students were eligible to be surveyed following 2021 NRMP match. The survey was distributed to medical school graduates just prior to graduation andasked how many programs each student applied to, how many interview invites they received, and how many interviews they attended. The 2021 survey also asked, How did virtual interviews affect your interview experience? The quantitative results were compared with student's t-test and qualitative results are presented below.
The averagenumber of programs each applicant applied to increased from 35.4 to 47.7(p-value=0.002) when residency interviews switched from in-person to virtual. However, interview invites received and interviews attended did not change (16.8 vs 16.3, p-value=0.91, 11.8 vs 12.7, p-value=0.18). There were 188 participants in the in-person interview group (response rate=41.2%) and 128 participants in the virtual interview group (response rate=83.3%). The standard deviation and range also increased for number of applications, number of interview invites received, and number of interviews attended.
There were 123 responses to the free response question. 36 had a positive experience, 44 were neutral, 47 were negative. The positive themes included 15 noted less expenses, 18 noted more convenient/less time, and 18 were able to attend more interviews. Negative themes included, 38 noted difficulty assessing program fit, 19 wanted to see the program or city in person, eight had increased interest in home/local programs, six found it difficult to make connections or stand out.
Sixty-three percent of students reported a positive or neutral experience with virtual interviews. Students applied to more programs when interviews were virtual, but did not receive more interview invites or attendmore interviews. These results suggest that virtual interviews are sufficient to conduct residency interviews, however the number of applications continues to rise with no increase in the number interview invites received or number of interviews attended. The increase in the standard deviation and range for all three variables may point to some applicants being able to get more invites and attend more interviews leaving less available spots for other applicants.
Medical students are currently applying to more residency programs than they ever have before, and we are continuing to see an increase each year [1,2]. Increased application numbers can be fueled by a fear of not matching and can lead to increased costs for students [1,3]. During the 2020-2021 Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) cycle, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended doing all interviews virtually [4].
Subsequently, changes have been proposed for upcoming interview cycles, including continuing with virtual interviews, and implementing application/interview limits, in an attempt to maximize efficiency and minimize cost [1,5,6]. However, one concern for students is they may have adequate exposure to programs, allowing them to confidently make an informed decision.Applicants thoughts on virtual interviews have been an emerging research topic in an attempt to obtain guidance on the ideal process for future interview cycles [7].
While the trend of increased application numbers for individual specialties has been published [8-16], the comparison between applications, interview invites, and interviews attended across the spectrum of virtual and in-person interviews has not been examined.
This study aims to identify variations between the number of residency applications completed, interview invites received, and interviews attended during the two separate styles of interviews: virtual and in-person. We also aim to summarize applicants thoughts and feelings toward virtual interviews, identifying themes that may lead to future improvements.
All graduating medical students from the years 2018 to 2021 were eligible to participate (601 students). For the in-person interview group, 457students from the years 2018 to 2020 were invited to participate in this study following the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match. For the virtual interview group, 144 students were invited to participate in this study following the 2021 NRMP match. No participants were excluded from the study other than those that chose not to complete the survey.This study was reviewed by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board at a single United States allopathic medical school and granted IRB exemption due to the survey nature of the study (IRB number: 201308718). Informed consent was waived by the IRB, however, it was readily available for all participants.
This is a retrospective cohort study with the experimental groups being the in-person interview group and virtual interview group. We retrospectively reviewed the data following the match process and participants were separated into the two experimental groups according to their graduation year and the type of interviews that they underwent i.e., in-person interviews for the batch of 2018 to 2020 or virtual interviews for the batch of 2021.
Paper surveys were distributed to participants when they picked up their graduation materials by members of the research team. They were completed and returned immediately. All surveys asked, the number of programs each student applied to, interview invites received, and interviews attended. The 2021 survey also asked, How did virtual interviews affect your interview experience? The survey responses were reviewed by the research team and deidentified in an excel database. The quantitative data was recorded as numerical values. The qualitative data was recorded exactly as the participant had written it for further analysis. The qualitative free response answers were categorized into positive, negative, or neutral responses as well as seven emerging themes. Each response could have more than one comment classified to each theme. If a student listed a positive and negative response, then it was classified as neutral. Each response was classified as a single data point as positive, negative, or neutral. Then all other comments were treated individually totaling 124 individual data points. Any responses that simply stated, virtual interviews were not good, virtual interviews had no effect, or virtual interviews were good, were only classified as negative, neutral, or positive accordingly, and not included in themes analysis. The themes that were considered positive were fewer expenses, more convenience/less time, and the ability to attend more interviews. Negative themes included difficulty assessing program fit, wanting to see more of the city/hospital, increased interest in home/local programs, and difficulty making connections/standing out. Assigning comments to positive, negative, or neutral and developing themes was performed independently by two authors (AM, AH). Any discrepancies were discussed, and an agreement was obtained.
We compared the number of programs applied to, interview invites received, and interviews attended for the in-person interview cohortto the virtual interview cohort using Students t-test. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 19 (College Station, TX). Qualitative data was only available for the virtual interview cohort, therefore it is discussed and displayed visually in the results section.
Response rates for years 2018 to 2020 were (188/457) 41.1%, and 83.3% (124/144) for 2021. There were no differences in age, gender, or ethnicity between the two experimental groups (Table 1). There was an increase in the number of programs applied to in the virtual interview group. This group applied to an average of 47.7programs per applicant compared to 35.4 programs per applicant for the in-person interview group. There was no difference in the number ofinterview invites received between the virtual interview group and the in-person interview group (16.3 vs 16.8 p-value=0.91) (Table 2). There was also no difference in the average number of interviews attended in the virtual interview group compared to the in-person interview group (12.7 vs 11.8 p-value=0.18)(Table 2).
There were 128 responses to the free-response question (response rate=128/144, 88.9%). Thirty-six had a positive experience, 44 were neutral, and 48 were negative (Figure 1). Therefore, 62.5% of respondents noted a positive or neutral experience with virtual interviews.Of the 128 overall responses, 124 comments were categorized into either one of the three positive themes or one of the four negative themes. The positive themes included 19 noting fewer expenses/cheaper, 18 noted more convenient/less time, and 17 were able to attend more interviews (Figure 2). Negative themes included 36 indicating difficulty assessing program fit, 22 wanted to see the program or city in person, six had increased interest in home/local programs, and six said it was difficult to make connections or stand out (Figure 2).
We saw an increase in the number of applications submitted during virtual interviews, but we did not see an increase in interview invites received or interviews attended. As mentioned above, this was likely because interview invites are a relatively fixed variable. We postulate that applicants likely were aware of the upcoming decreased cost of virtual interviews and may have already set aside or borrowed funds to complete the interview cycle, therefore allowing more spending on the total number of submitted applications. Even with a slight increase in application fees, the process was considerably cheaper than in prior cycles. This further supports the recommendations for application limits, as the increase in applications had diminishing returns, as it did not result in increased interview invites or interviews attended [1,5,6].As mentioned above, it can be disadvantageous to many students.
Overall, almost two-thirds of participants reported a positive or neutral experience with virtual interviews. Therefore, in conjunction with the decreased time and cost, and consistent with other published findings [7], virtual interviews may be a reasonable option for future interview cycles. The most prevalent positive responses were fewer expenses, more convenient/less time commitment, and the ability to attend more interviews.
The decreased expenses are expected and primarily due to the lack of travel expenses. Fogel et al. found that the expenses for each typical orthopedic surgery residency interview were $250 to $499. Around 13% of those study participants spent more than $7,500 on interviews, and 41% stated they declined interviews due to financial reasons [17]. Additionally, Blackshaw et al. found that each in-person emergency medicine residency interview costs an average of $342 for an average total of $8,312 on applications and interviews [18]. Orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, ophthalmology, internal medicine, radiology, and otolaryngology have all published papers highlighting the increased cost of applying to residency in each of their particular specialties [8,10-12,16,18,19]. Continuing virtual interviews certainly will decrease the financial burden placed on students.
Along with the cost savings, many respondents reported increased convenience and decreased time commitment with virtual interviews. These findings are associated with students reporting the ability to attend more interviews. This was classified as a positive in this study since more interviews will likely increase the likelihood of an applicant matching a residency position. However, as demonstrated by Whipple et al., while applying for more programs can be advantageous for one applicant, it can be a disadvantage to the group of applicants, overall.When the entire cohort applies to more programs the benefit of increased matching likelihood is lost, yet the overall cost is increased [20]. They found when all applicants applied to the maximal number of programs it led to a poorer result for the majority of students. These findings make sense because if one applicant applies to more programs than the other applicants, they are more likely to receive more interviews. If they receive more interviews, they can have a longer rank list thus increasing their chance of matching to one of those programs. However, the total number of interview slots available is relatively fixed. If stronger applicants complete more interviews, they may cause the undesired effects of decreasing the number of interviews available for average or below-average applicants, therefore decreasing their likelihood of matching into their desired specialty.For example, if a strong applicant is now able to attend 20 instead of 15 interviews, another applicant who previously may have received and attended 10 interviews may now only receive five interviews. In both theoretical scenarios, the average is unchanged at 12.5 interviews, but the applicant with more interviews and a longer rank list is more likely to match.As seen in our study, the average number of interviews attended for in-person and virtual interviews was similar. This was in the context of multiple students reporting being able to attend more interviews, yet the average number of interviews remained the same. This phenomenon of some students getting more interviews while some receiving fewer occurred in our study population, as seen with the much larger standard deviation and range during virtual interviews (Table 2). These findings are the basis of capping residency interviews at 12 per applicant, as proposed by Morgan et al. [5]. We find this to be one of the most concerning issues with virtual interviews as they currently are being conducted. Averagebut competitive applicants may not match within the current algorithm just because they were unable to receive the same number of interviews as they previously might have during in-person interviews.
The negative aspects of virtual interviews demonstrated in this study are difficulty assessing program fit, wanting to see the program or city in person, increased interest in home/local programs, and difficulty in making connections or standing out. Assessing fit may be the more difficult item to rectify using virtual platformsdue to the lack of organic in-person interactions. One potential solution to this issue is one round of virtual interviews, followed by another round of in-person interviews [21]. The opportunity to see more of the city or hospital facilities is an easier obstacle to overcome.With additional time and careful planning, programs may be able to provide more adequate videos and photos of the hospital facilities and surrounding city. Some programs such as the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Med-Peds residency program are using virtual reality with 66% of respondents stating that virtual reality was superior or non-inferior to in-person tours [22]. We classified increased interest in home/local programs as a negative responsebecause it likely decreases diversity in residency programs. A lack of diversity in medical training has been highlighted in both orthopedic and otolaryngology literature [23,24]. Therefore, in an attempt to continue to decrease these disparities, we classified it as a negative response in our survey. These obstacles can be addressed by interviewing more applicants from other regions and other medical schools. However, before virtual interviews, as shown by Loh et al., students were already more likely to match in the same region they attended medical school [25]. The final negative response students reported was difficulty making connections or standing out. However, as students may feel this is a concern, each student is given more equal opportunity for total virtual face time, as compared to informal dinners and gatherings.Additionally, some students may have similar feelings about in-person interviews. There is also published literature by Sarac et al. on how to optimize the virtual interview experience and how to best prepare [26]. Therefore, we feel like this is a real, but correctable concern with virtual interviews.
A potential limitation to this study is the classification of positive, negative, or neutral responses. For one student, increased interest in home/local programs may be positive, while for another it may be negative. We also classified responses with a positive and negative theme as neutral responses. For example, decreased cost and difficulty assessing fit were both positive and negative responses, respectively, which were analyzed as such and were also included in the neutral group. For each student, these factors hold different weight, and it is impossible to accurately discern how much each factor plays into a students decision. In the future, we want to examine the trends over time with a larger multi-institutional study population.
In conclusion, conducting virtual interviews correlated with an increased number of residency program applications, but not an increased number of interview invites nor interviews attended. Overall, most applicants felt the virtual interviews did not cause a negative interview experience and saved considerable expenses. Therefore, we conclude that with concentrated efforts to improve concerns identified in this study such as assessing fit and being able to see more of the hospital/city even virtually, virtual interviews are an effective method for conducting residency interviews.
A new COVID-19 testing site has opened in Windsor amid rising positivity rates in Weld County.
The site, operated by Curative, is open 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. weekdays at Eastman Park.The location offers PCR and antigen testing.
Insurance is required, but there is also a self-pay option available at the site for those who would like to be tested without insurance. A lab-based PCR cost $99 for patients who opt for self-pay, while there is no cost to the insured patients.
If the patient does the self-pay, the cost for the Lab-based PCR is $99. If they have insurance, there is no cost to the patient as we will bill the insurance.
Weld Countys one-week cumulative incident rate per 100,00 residents is at 201.9 with 664 new cases reported in the last week, according to Weld County COVID-19 data.
The countys one-week average positive test rate is 12.11% up from 10% two weeks ago a significant spike since the positive test rate of 4.92% in the second to last week in April.
In January 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administrationreleased an alert about the risk of false results, particularly negative, with the Curative SARS-Cov-2 test. Curative testing sites have since halted the use of the tests.
The companys two sites in Greeley a kiosk at the University of Northern Colorado and a drive-thru in west Greeley also stopped testing patients with the Curative SARS-Cov-2 test due to the alert.
To make an appointment, go to curative.com.
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. The gym closures, social distancing mandates and other COVID-19 mitigation policies in the U.S. negatively affected the mental health and well-being of some people with disabilities by significantly curtailing their ability to remain active, researchers found.
In a survey of more than 950 people with diverse types of disabilities, researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign identified four groups of people heavily impacted, resilient, adapted and radically changed who were differently affected by the pandemic.
They observed that people in the heavily impacted group, who experienced the greatest disruptions during the pandemic about 39% of those surveyed, many of them veterans and women reported significantly worse mental health.
These people experienced the greatest negative effects on their mental and physical well-being compared with peers who were able to continue with their pre-pandemic activities or who adapted by trying new ones, according to Jules Woolf, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the university and the first author of the study.
People in the heavily impacted group indicated that they were either not engaging in physical activity at all or their participation was greatly diminished by pandemic safety restrictions, Woolf said. These participants scored significantly lower on well-being indicators such as life satisfaction, self-efficacy, quality of life and general health than their peers in the other three groups we identified. They also experienced greater loneliness and depression.
Self-efficacy is the belief in ones ability to meet challenges and accomplish goals.
By contrast, people in the resilient group reported the highest quality of life and general health. These individuals, about 21% of those surveyed, experienced minor impact on the types of activities they engaged in and the amount of time they spent performing them.
Woolf and co-authors Mikihiro Sato and Jon Welty Peachey, both professors in the same department; and then-doctoral student Wonju Lee developed and conducted the research with the nonprofit Move United, which promotes sport and recreation among people with disabilities.
The study participants engaged in a wide variety of physical activities, including outdoor aerobic sports such as walking, running and wheelchair pushing; cycling; weightlifting; water sports such as swimming and kayaking; target sports; boxing; and golf.
Six different scales were used to assess participants mental health and well-being, quality of life, satisfaction with their physical health, frequency of feeling lonely or depressed, self-esteem and overall life satisfaction, according to the study.
Slightly more than half of those surveyed had mobility impairments or limb loss or deficiency, 16% had neuromuscular impairments and 11% had brain injuries. About a third of the study participants were veterans and 59% were male.
Participants with neuromuscular disabilities, blindness or low vision, and/or cognitive or intellectual disabilities were more likely to be in the heavily impacted group.
People with particular types of disabilities, rare or multiple impairments may require greater assistance or additional accommodations that necessitate close contact and are incompatible with social-distancing policies, Woolf said.
People in the adapted group, who made up 27% of the study population, adjusted to pandemic restrictions by changing the types of activities they engaged in to varying extents. They also participated virtually, in person or alone.
People in the radically changed group who composed more than 12% of the total sample discovered new modes of physical activity during the pandemic, particularly ones they could perform alone such as running, walking and online activities. However, the amount of time they engaged in these activities was variable.
The mental health and well-being scores of people in the radically changed and adapted groups were comparable across all the outcomes, the researchers found.
Published in the journal Leisure Studies, the study is believed to be the first to examine the impact of online recreational activities on people with disabilities during disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
About 10% of the participants transitioned to online platforms. While virtual options helped some stay active and alleviated feelings of isolation, those in the study primarily used these technologies to supplement rather than replace their traditional activities.
But even among the people who were able to negotiate the constraints imposed by pandemic safety policies, the adaptations they made often had suboptimal outcomes, Woolf said.
This was observed with the radically changed group and their greater frequency of depression compared to the resilient group. One potential explanation is that the radically changed group tended to engage in activities alone and virtually that may have contributed to feelings of isolation.
Events such as natural disasters and epidemics tend to have a greater impact on people with disabilities, diminishing their ability to remain active; therefore, its crucial to understand how public policies associated with these events affect this population and to develop promotions that target them, the researchers wrote.
In the U.S., the COVID-19 mitigation policies that were imposed exacerbated structural constraints that people with disabilities face, such as access to sport clubs and gyms, Woolf said. Moreover, interpersonal constraints and limitations on social gatherings restricted assistance that some may need, while impairments may affect their ability to remain active. These intrapersonal constraints need to be accounted for, as demonstrated in this study.
ReportLinker
The global sub-woofer market is expected to grow from US$ 834. 77 million in 2021 to US$ 1,132. 62 million by 2028; it is estimated to register a CAGR of 4. 5% during 2021-2028. A sub-woofer is used for various applications such as home audio, cinema sound, car audio, sound reinforcement, outdoor entertainment, and others.
New York, June 20, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Sub-Woofer Market Forecast to 2028 - COVID-19 Impact and Global Analysis By Application and End-user" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06232610/?utm_source=GNW The requirement for sub-woofers is growing with the increasing number of public meetings, stand-up comedy shows, and cinema halls.
Shifting preferences and changing consumer lifestyle toward using on-board infotainment systems in ride-hailing services is anticipated to create promising opportunities in the sub-woofer market.
The sub-woofer market is segmented into application, end-user, and geography.Based on application, the sub-woofer market is segmented into car audio, home audio, cinema sound, sound reinforcement, and others.
In 2020, home audio segment held the largest share in the market.In terms of end-user, the sub-woofer market is segmented into residential and commercial.
In 2020, the commercial segment accounted for a larger share.Geographically, the market is broadly segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific (APAC), the Middle East & Africa (MEA), and South America (SAM).
In 2020, Asia Pacific accounted for a significant share in the global market.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the sub-woofer industry came to a halt due to minimal resources.The temporary shutdown of the manufacturing units has negatively impacted the growth of the sub-woofer market across the globe and has created many uncertainties in the stock market, decline in the supply chain, falling business confidence, and growing panic among consumers.
Due to the unusual coronavirus outbreak, the production and supply chain procedures have been halted.Also, the research and development (R&D) exercises of key players have been halted across the globe.
The sale of sub-woofer has been decreased during the Covid-19 outbreak due to the operational constraints on sales channels such as specialty stores and e-commerce platforms. Nonetheless, certain manufacturing firms have restarted their plans and prepared to owe to the rests imposed on the restrictions, by the government bodies, in several regions.
In 2020, the US witnessed most severe impact of COVID-19.Sub-woofer manufacturers and service providers were affected due to nationwide lockdowns, travel restrictions, shutdown of production facilities, and shortage of employees.
The pandemic led to health and economic crises in the US.Moreover, it led to disruptions in the consumer electronics industry, impacting various aspects such as supply chain, manufacturing, and sales.
The pandemic has directly and indirectly affected the sub-woofer market, and it is expected to witness growth with decreasing COVID-19 cases.
The overall sub-woofer market size has been derived using both primary and secondary sources.Extensive secondary research has been conducted using internal and external sources to obtain qualitative and quantitative information related to the market.
The research also serves the purpose of obtaining an overview and forecast of the sub-woofer market with all the segments.It also offers an overview and forecast of the market based on the segmentation provided concerning five major regionsNorth America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa, and South America.
Also, primary interviews were conducted with industry participants and commentators to validate data and gain more analytical insights into the topic. The participants of the research include VPs, business development managers, market intelligence managers, and national sales managersalong with external consultants such as valuation experts, research analysts, and key opinion leadersspecializing in the sub-woofer market.
Dynaudio A/S, K-Array, Harman International, Sony Corporation, SV Sound, Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Paradigm Electronics Inc., LW Speakers professional sound systems, Klipsch Group Inc., and JVC Kenwood Holdings Inc are among the few companies operating in the global sub-woofer market.Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06232610/?utm_source=GNW
About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.
__________________________
Story continues
New York, June 20, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Automotive Backing Plate Market Forecast to 2028 - COVID-19 Impact and Global Analysis By Brake Types, Brake Material Type, and Vehicle Type" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06279418/?utm_source=GNW However, air enters the compressor via an air filter and is sent to the reservoir by an unloader valve. It then enters the brake chamber via a brake valve, which is used to adjust the amount of braking. Most automobiles include servo braking systems meant to increase the amount of pressure the driver delivers to the brake pedal. The system uses a vacuum in the intake manifold to create the excess pressure necessary for the brake to work. Furthermore, the mechanisms are only functional when the engine is turned on.
When an EV driver releases the accelerator pedal during regenerative braking, the power flow from the battery to the motor is discontinued.However, the spinning component of the engine (the rotor) continues rotating in tandem with the wheels of the still-moving automobile.
Without a constant supply of electricity from the battery, the motor transforms into a generator, transferring kinetic energy from the spinning rotor to the battery, while resistance to the rotor slows the vehicle.Regenerative braking is a new technique that has been in use for over a century, although research continues to improve its efficiency.
Improvements to batteries will enhance the amount of energy that regenerative braking can store.Supercapacitor advancements will also improve braking efficiency.
Regenerative braking is most effective at higher speeds and on long downhill since more kinetic energy is available to be converted. Continued research on regenerative braking system can reduce the energy loss in the braking process to make electric vehicles more efficient, economical, and environmental-friendly. The continuous advancements in regenerative braking systems provide lucrative opportunities for the growth of the automotive backing plate market during the forecast period.
When a driver rapidly applies the brakes to a moving automobile, the wheels are likely to become stuck owing to the sudden braking force and slide on the road.Even if the driver acts swiftly, the automobile will be out of the drivers control.
The anti-braking system (ABS) keeps the wheels from locking and instead applies intermittent braking power to allow the wheels to spin slightly.This significantly improves the cars braking effectiveness and enables the driver to guide the vehicle away from the obstacle while braking strongly.
Electronic brake-force distribution (EBD) ensures that brake force is distributed to the wheels as per road conditions and the drivers needs.Speed sensors are used to detect the velocity of the wheels and automobile.
The data is transmitted into the ECU, continually comparing the two numbers. When it detects slippage caused by the wheels higher speed than the cars speed, it transmits the instruction to apply a slight braking force to the sliding wheel. This function determines which wheel requires more braking force and delivers it to that wheel independently. These features lead to the growth of the automotive backing plate market.
An automated braking system is a vital component of car safety technology.It is a powerful system specifically designed to either prevent or limit the speed of a moving vehicle before a collision with another vehicle, a pedestrian, or any other barriers.
These systems employ sensors, such as radar, video, infrared, or ultrasonic, to identify potential objects in front of the vehicle and then use brake control to avoid a collision if the item is identified.An automated braking system can also communicate with a vehicles GPS and utilize its database of stop signs and other traffic data to apply the brakes in time if the driver fails to do so.
For instance, Subarus EyeSight system uses video input in the form of two-color cameras mounted at the top of the windshield to look for contrast with the background and vertical surfaces when scanning the area.The software can then recognize different images, including pedestrians, motorcycles, and rear ends of other vehicles.
These advantages of the automatic braking system will propel the automotive backing plate market.
The automotive backing plate market across the globe continues to grow year-on-year, exhibiting a steady growth rate.The region is concentrated with leading automakers and tier 2 & small vehicle manufacturers.
The economic rise in the region positively impacts the consumption pattern of passenger cars.The automotive backing plate market for premium cars is constantly increasing in North America, owing to steady economic progression.
Due to the increasing demand from North American consumers, the automakers in the region are increasing their production lines.The automotive backing plate market is rising as automakers must comply with strict emission norms.
For instance, the US Department of Energy has approved more than ~US$ 8 billion in loans to support the automobile sector through the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing (ATVM) program, which has assisted firms in redesigning their vehicle parts for improved fuel efficiency, owing to the growth of automotive backing plate market in the region.
Key companies in the automotive backing plate market include Super Circle, NUCAP, MAT Foundry Group Ltd., INDUS Marmara Auto Components Pvt Ltd., Dorman Products, Ridex GMBH, ORTLINGHAUS-WERKE GmbH, Sparex, RSB Tech Solution, and ACDelco. The report also comprises secondary research on other companies that hold a significant share of the automotive backing plate market.
The overall size of the automotive backing plate market has been derived using both primary and secondary sources.To begin the research process, exhaustive secondary research has been conducted using internal and external sources to obtain qualitative and quantitative information related to the automotive backing plate market.
The process also serves the purpose of obtaining an overview and forecast for the automotive backing plate market with respect to all the market segments.Also, multiple primary interviews have been conducted with industry participants to validate the data and gain more analytical insights into the automotive backing plate market.
The participants of this process include industry experts such as VPs, business development managers, market intelligence managers, and national sales managersalong with external consultants such as valuation experts, research analysts, and key opinion leadersspecializing in the automotive backing plate market.Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06279418/?utm_source=GNW
About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.
__________________________
Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?
Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.
If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.
If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.
Another way to prevent getting this page in the future is to use Privacy Pass. Check out the browser extension in the Firefox Add-ons Store.
Covit-19 infections have increased in European countries in the last 24 hours. In France, the number of positive cases rose to 50,000 in the last 24 hours from 18,000 daily at the end of May, according to the French health watchdog Santa Public France. An increase of approximately 743%.
In the UK, the ZOE Govt data, which coincides with the Platinum Jubilee celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II, rose from 164,030 on June 1 to 167,973 on June 14. Surprisingly, we are entering the third wave of 2022, said Steve Griffin, a virologist at the University of Leeds. A lot has been said about the decline in BA2 wave cases in recent weeks. However, this has not only been confirmed, but has started to rise again.
According to experts, the development of new infections is mainly due to the release of two new subtypes of omigran, BA.4 and BA.5, which are highly contagious in recent weeks between 10% and 15% more contagious, but reversing previous strains and default It is said that it does not cause more serious disease than lack of protective measures. However the impact on hospitals is yet to be calculated. However, French government spokeswoman Olivia Grgoire said they were vigilant and needed to announce measures such as the mandatory use of masks in health facilities and nursing homes. The states emergency is scheduled for July 31, and next Wednesday, July 22, during the Cabinet meeting.
Experts emphasize the importance of the vaccine, which reaches 79% of the population in France, with three doses. To combat Omigran and its subtypes, even the available vaccines have not yet been updated, which is still a very effective measure. New vaccines are being tested by Pfizer and Moderna, but it is not yet known when they will be available.
Continuing after the ad
Vaccines will be mainly available through pediatricians offices
Vermont Business Magazine On Saturday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended COVID-19 vaccines for children age 6 months through 5 years of age, paving the way for vaccinating the youngest Vermonters later this month.
This is very welcome news for the parents and caregivers who have been waiting for more than a year now for their young children to benefit from a COVID-19 vaccine, said Health Commissioner Mark Levine, MD. Vaccines are the safer way to build protection against the virus and help prevent serious outcomes.
Both the Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have been authorized for use. Providers will begin receiving the vaccines this week, but will have their own plans for administering them, so parents and caregivers should expect to hear from their childs pediatrician when they are ready to begin vaccinations.
Pediatricians are a trusted resource for parents, and they can answer questions and provide a familiar, comfortable setting for children to be vaccinated, Dr. Levine said.
There are about 26,000 children age 6 months through 4 years old in Vermont who will now be eligible for vaccination.
This is an important and welcomed step forward, said Governor Scott. Vermont has led the nation in vaccination uptake, especially among our youth. Im confident Vermont parents and caregivers will continue to step up in this new phase of our vaccination efforts.
The Health Department will also offer the vaccines at a limited number of walk-in clinics, including at equity-focused clinics. Information about clinics with vaccines for this age group will be updated athealthvermont.gov/KidsVaccineas soon as its available. There is no registration for these clinics. Families enrolled in WIC may also be able to get vaccinated through their local WIC office. Some pharmacies will also carry the vaccine, but can only vaccinate children age 3 and older.
The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is authorized to be given to children age 6 months through 4 years in two doses that are three weeks apart, followed by a third dose at least two months later. The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is authorized to be given to children 6 months through 5 years in two doses four weeks apart.
Pfizer doses are one-tenth the dosage given to adults, while the Moderna doses are one-fourth the dosage.
The vaccines were found to be safe, with side effects typically mild and temporary.
For more information visithealthvermont.gov/KidsVaccine.
Department of Health
We have been the state's public health agency for more than 130 years, working every day to protect and promote the health of Vermonters.
BURLINGTON, VT healthvermont.gov
