Conforto térmico de habitações em Medellín

The indoor thermal environment of buildings influences people’s health, well-being and productivity, as well as energy consumption. The importance of thermal comfort in buildings has been recognized for decades. However, this aspect is still incipient in the Colombian construction industry, especially in housing projects. In this research, the thermal performance of three common housing types in the city of Medellin was analyzed. To do this, the operative temperature, the predicted mean vote (PMV) and the predicted percentage of dissatisfied (PPD) were calculated in accordance with ISO 7730:2005. The results showed that the thermal inertia of two of the three types of housing examined was insufficient to offer adequate thermal conditions, despite the temperate climate of the Aburra Valley. These results warn about the vulnerability of urban population in Colombia to extreme temperature fluctuations.El ambiente térmico en una edificación influye en la salud, el bienestar y la productividad de las personas, así como en el consumo energético. La importancia del confort térmico en las edificaciones se reconoce desde hace décadas, no obstante, este aspecto es aún incipiente en la industria de la construcción colombiana, sobre todo en proyectos de vivienda. En esta investigación se analizó el desempeño térmico de tres tipos de vivienda comunes en la ciudad de Medellín. Para ello se calculó la temperatura operativa, el voto medio estimado (PMV) y el porcentaje estimado de insatisfechos (PPD), de acuerdo con la norma ISO 7730:2005. Los resultados mostraron que la inercia térmica de dos de los tres tipos de vivienda examinados no es suficiente para ofrecer un confort térmico adecuado, a pesar del clima templado del Valle de Aburrá. Estos resultados alertan sobre la vulnerabilidad de la población urbana en Colombia ante fluctuaciones extremas de temperatura.O ambiente térmico em uma construção influencia na saúde, no bem-estar e na produtividade das pessoas, bem como no consumo energético. A importância do conforto térmico nas edificações é reconhecida há décadas, não obstante, esse aspecto ainda é incipiente na indústria da construção colombiana, sobretudo em projetos de habitação. Nesta pesquisa, o desempenho térmico de três tipos de habitação comuns na cidade de Medellín foi analisado. Para isso, calculou-se a temperatura operativa, o voto médio estimado (PMV) e a porcentagem estimada de insatisfeitos (PPD), de acordo com a norma ISO 7730:2005. Os resultados mostraram que a inércia térmica de dois dos três tipos de habitação examinados não é suficiente para oferecer um conforto térmico adequado, apesar do clima ameno do Valle de Aburrá. Esses resultados alertam sobre a vulnerabilidade da população urbana na Colômbia ante oscilações extremas de temperatura

Confort térmico en viviendas de Medellín

The indoor thermal environment of buildings influences people’s health, well-being and productivity, as well as energy consumption. The importance of thermal comfort in buildings has been recognized for decades. However, this aspect is still incipient in the Colombian construction industry, especially in housing projects. In this research, the thermal performance of three common housing types in the city of Medellin was analyzed. To do this, the operative temperature, the predicted mean vote (PMV) and the predicted percentage of dissatisfied (PPD) were calculated in accordance with ISO 7730:2005. The results showed that the thermal inertia of two of the three types of housing examined was insufficient to offer adequate thermal conditions, despite the temperate climate of the Aburra Valley. These results warn about the vulnerability of urban population in Colombia to extreme temperature fluctuations.O ambiente térmico em uma construção influencia na saúde, no bem-estar e na produtividade das pessoas, bem como no consumo energético. A importância do conforto térmico nas edificações é reconhecida há décadas, não obstante, esse aspecto ainda é incipiente na indústria da construção colombiana, sobretudo em projetos de habitação. Nesta pesquisa, o desempenho térmico de três tipos de habitação comuns na cidade de Medellín foi analisado. Para isso, calculou-se a temperatura operativa, o voto médio estimado (PMV) e a porcentagem estimada de insatisfeitos (PPD), de acordo com a norma ISO 7730:2005. Os resultados mostraram que a inércia térmica de dois dos três tipos de habitação examinados não é suficiente para oferecer um conforto térmico adequado, apesar do clima ameno do Valle de Aburrá. Esses resultados alertam sobre a vulnerabilidade da população urbana na Colômbia ante oscilações extremas de temperatura.El ambiente térmico en una edificación influye en la salud, el bienestar y la productividad de las personas, así como en el consumo energético. La importancia del confort térmico en las edificaciones se reconoce desde hace décadas, no obstante, este aspecto es aún incipiente en la industria de la construcción colombiana, sobre todo en proyectos de vivienda. En esta investigación se analizó el desempeño térmico de tres tipos de vivienda comunes en la ciudad de Medellín. Para ello se calculó la temperatura operativa, el voto medio estimado (PMV) y el porcentaje estimado de insatisfechos (PPD), de acuerdo con la norma ISO 7730:2005. Los resultados mostraron que la inercia térmica de dos de los tres tipos de vivienda examinados no es suficiente para ofrecer un confort térmico adecuado, a pesar del clima templado del Valle de Aburrá. Estos resultados alertan sobre la vulnerabilidad de la población urbana en Colombia ante fluctuaciones extremas de temperatura

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health