Ethnicity and Class, Transitions Over a Decade: Ontario, 1861‑1871

Following the pathfinding work of Pentland, many 19th century Canadian historians have posited a split labour market in the crucial period between 1850 and 1870. According to this view, the period saw the creation of a landless proletariat, essential to the transformation of the country from an agricultural and commercial to an industrial and capitalist economy. This nascent group was divided along ethnic lines, English and Scottish workers gaining the skilled, and Irish workers the unskilled, jobs .One inference would be that these internal divisions coupled with the high wages paid to the more privileged workers allowed Canada to avoid a large measure of working-class radi- calism, while the pool of skilled personnel allowed Canadian industries to avoid the high costs of training. An examination of the 1861 and 1871 censuses in south-central Ontario, however, suggests that immigrant Catholic and Protestant Irish were not concentrated in low-paid industrial work, but in agriculture.A computer-assisted survey of' 10,000 men with known occupations linked between the two censuses provides evidence on a number of questions. The analysis of the data reveals the following differences in the makeup of the male labour force between 1861 and 1871: a) the proportion of Ontario-born rose from 27 percent to 40 percent, while the figures for Irish-born dropped from 24 percent to 15 percent; the proportion ofScottish- and English-born remained virtually the same; b) in occupational terms, there was a shift from labouring to farming and, to a lesser extent, to artisanal and nonmanual professions; the overwhelming majority of farmers (84 percent in 1871) were owners rather than tenants; c) neither religion nor ethnicity determined occupation ; except for a concentration of the Irish-born in labouring, the working population does not appear to have been split along either ethnic or religious lines. A relatively high proportion of Ontario-born workers (30 percent in 1861 and 25 percent in 1871) were farmers' sons; d) over the period, differences among national groups in the occupational tables lessened, though Irish Catholics continued to be overrepresented in the labouring category, and English-born in the bourgeois and artisanal occupations. Though there were some occupational specializations among ethnic groups, the concentrations were not suffi- ciently pronounced to support the view that the working population was deeply split along ethnic lines; e) an analysis of occupation linked with age suggests that there was no movement off the land, and therefore no proletarianization of the population during the 1860s. On the contrary, there was an increase in the proportion of farmers with age, and a decrease in the proportion of labourers. Each occupational group had a distinctive pattern of growth with variations over time;f) record linkage between the two censuses permits some conclusions on the question of occupational persistence. Nearly 90 percent of the farmers in 1861 listed the same profession a decade later, while just over a third of the labourers did the same. Artisans, professionals and merchants/'manufac- turers, in that order, occupied the middle ground in terms of persistence. Relatively few sons of farmers (7 percent) became either labourers or artisans. The least persistent occupational category was clerical and other nonmanual workers, only 30 percent of whom remained in the same type of work. The evidence suggests a high degree cf occupational mobility over time, and an absence of rural depopulation or a crisis of agriculture; g) mobility appears to have been more dependent upon occupation and much less upon age, except for unskilled workers. Mobility was greatest below the age of 25, expeciallyfor labourers, but varied less between the ages qf25 and54. Only artisans show much mobility above the last age. By including ethnicity in the calculations, only one major phenomenon can be identified: Irish-Catholic labourers had a greater tendency to remain in this category over time.In an era when urban industrialization was gathering momentum, independent com- modity production by family farmers also expanded, especially out oflabouring and into farming.Suite aux travaux pionniers de Pentland, un grand nombre d'historiens canadiens du 19e siècle ont postulé l'existence d'un marché du travail partagé pendant la période cruciale s'étendant de 1850 à 1870. D'après cette hypothèse, on assiste à cette époque à la création d'un prolétariat sans terres, élément essentiel à la transformation du pays, d'une économie agricole et commerciale à une économie industrielle et capitaliste. Ce groupe naissant était partagé suivant l'ethnie, les travailleurs Anglais et Ecossais occupant les emplois spécialisés, les Irlandais étant relégués aux emplois non spé- cialisés. On soutient que ce partage interne, s ajoutant aux salaires élevés versés aux travailleurs les plus prévilégiés, permit au Canada d'éviter en grande partie le radi- calisme ouvrier, alors que la réserve de personnel compétent épargna aux industries canadiennes les coûts élevés de la formation. Cependant une étude des recensements de 1861 et 1871 dans le centre-sud de l'Ontario indique que, en majorité, les immigrants irlandais catholiques et protestants travaillaient non pas à des emplois industriels peu rémunérés, mais bien à Vagriculture.Une enquête informatisée sur 10,000 hommes cou verts par les deux recensements et dont l'emploi est connu, fournit des renseignements sur un certain nombre de questions. L'analyse des données révèle les différences suivantes dans la composition de la population active masculine entre 1861 et 1871: a) la proportion de personnes nées en Ontario passer de 27 à 40 pour cent, alors que le nombre de personnes nées en Irlande baisse de 24 à 15 pour cent; la proportion de personnes nées en Ecosse et en Angleterre demeure essentiellement inchangée: b) pour ce qui est des emplois, il y aun mouvement du travail d'ouvriers vers iagriculture et, dans une moindre mesure, vers les occupa- tions artisanales et non-manuelles; la grande majorité des fermiers (84 pour cent en 1871) est propriétaire et non locataire; c) ni l'ethnicité ni la religion ne déterminaient l'occupation; à l'exception d'une concentration d'Irlandais d'origine dans les milieux ouvriers, la population active ne semble pas avoir été départagée suivant l'ethnicité ou Vappartenance religieuse. Une proportion relativement élevée de travailleurs nés en Ontario (30 pour cent en 1861 et 25 pour cent en 1871) était constituée de fermiers et de leurs fits; d) pendant cette période les différences entre nationalités au sein des groupes occupationnels s'aténuent, quoique les Irlandais catholiques continuent d'être sur- représentés chez les ouvriers, tout comme les Anglais d'origine dans les occupations bourgeoises et artisanales. S'il y a une certaine spécialisation occupationnelle par groupe ethnique, la concertration n'est pas assez prononcée pour appuyer l hypothèse selon laquelle la population était profondément partagée suivant l'ethnicité; e) une analyse des emplois par groupes d'âge laisse croire qu'il n'y a pas de mouvement d'abandon de l'agriculture et, conséquemment, pas de prolétarisation de la population au cours des années 1860. Au contraire, il y eu un accroissement de la proportion de fermiers et une diminution de la proportion d'ouvriers. Chaque groupe occupationnei suit un modèle de croissance particulier, avec des variations dans le temps; f) i établisse- ment de liens entre les données des deux recensements permet certaines conclusions sur la question de la permanence dans l'emploi. Près de 90 pour cent de ceux qui étaient fermiers en 1861 se réclamaient du même groupe occupationnei une décennie plus tard, alors que seulement un tiers des ouvriers faisaient de même. Dans l'ordre, les artisants, les professionnels et les marchands/fabricants se situent au centre de l'échelle pour ce qui est de la permanence. Un nombre relativement peu élevé de fils de fermiers (7 pour cent) sont devenus ouvriers ou artisans. Le groupe occupationnei le moins stable est celui des travailleurs non-manuels, où seulement 30 pour cent ont gardé le même genre d'emploi. Les données indiquent une mobilité occupationnelle assez élevée dans le temps, et l'absence de dépeuplement rural ou d'une crise de l'agriculture; g) sauf pour les travailleurs non-spécialisés, la mobilité semble dépendre plus de l'occupation que de l'âge. Le taux de mobilité est le plus élevé pour les travailleurs âgés de moins de 25 ans, particulièrement chez les ouvriers, alors qu'il est moins prononcé entre 25 et 54 ans. Au delà de cet âge, seuls les artisans ont une certaine mobilité. En tenant compte de l'ethnicité dans les calculs, un seul phénomène important peut être identifié: les ouvriers Irlandais catholiques avaient plus fortement tendance à demeurer dans cette catégorie pendant assez longtemps.A une époque où Vindustrialisation urbaine prenait de l'ampleur, la production indé- pendante de produits de base pas des familles d'agriculteurs devint également plus courante. La mobilité occupationnelle était généralisée, ce manifestant particulière- ment du groupe des ouvriers, vers celui des agriculteurs

Family Coresidence in Canada in 1871: Family Life‑Cycles, Occupations and Networks of Mutual Aid

Depuis les dernières années, les problèmes relatifs à la maisonnée ont assumé une place de plus en plus prépondérante en histoire sociale. Des recherches récentes ont d'ailleurs démontré que, loin d'être réduites à leur état nucléaire de par les impératifs du capitalisme industriel, les maisonnées ont au contraire gagné en complexité en plusieurs endroits au début de la période d'industrialisation. Ainsi, dans plusieurs maisonnées du XIXe siècle, la famille nucléaire fut augmentée de d'autres membres de la parenté, de pensionnaires ou même de locataires. Voire, certaines maisonnées ont été encore plus complexes puisqu'elles étaient formées de plus d'une famille ou de plus d'un couple non apparentés. Ce sont ces derniers aspects de la complexité des maisonnées que les auteurs privilégient dans cet article.A partir d'un échantillonnage de 10 000 maisonnées tiré du recensement canadien de 1871, ils étudient les quelque 1022 ménages composés de plus d'un couple ou de plus d'une famille non liés par des liens de parenté. Dans un premier temps, l'analyse porte sur la répartition de ces maisonnées par province, sur leur appartenance aux milieux rural ou urbain et sur la composition même des familles qu'elles comprenaient. Dans un deuxième temps, les auteurs étudient l'incidence possible de la présence parmi elles de membres d'une famille-souche en dépit de noms différents: par exemple, celle d'une fille et de son époux vivant avec les parents de celle-ci. Ils se penchent ensuite sur les cycles de vie de ces familles et, enfin, ils examinent les différents aspects des rapports qui ont pu les lier en relevant, entre autres éléments, l'occupation des chefs de famille et leur origine ethnique.Il ressort de tout ceci que la corésidence de familles non apparentées était beaucoup plus répandue au pays qu'on ne l'avait soupçonné jusqu'à date. De plus, la composition des maisonnées était également plus complexe que ce que l'on avait escompté. Bien souvent, en effet, les familles qui corésidaient comptaient des adolescents en âge de travailler et, parfois aussi, ces familles étaient issues d'un milieu bourgeois. En somme, ce sont là des incidences qui obligent à remettre en question certaines idées reçues et, en particulier, celle qui veut que les familles du XIXe siècle n'aient corésidé que dans des moments de difficultés économiques

Basic science232. Certolizumab pegol prevents pro-inflammatory alterations in endothelial cell function

Background: Cardiovascular disease is a major comorbidity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a leading cause of death. Chronic systemic inflammation involving tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF) could contribute to endothelial activation and atherogenesis. A number of anti-TNF therapies are in current use for the treatment of RA, including certolizumab pegol (CZP), (Cimzia ®; UCB, Belgium). Anti-TNF therapy has been associated with reduced clinical cardiovascular disease risk and ameliorated vascular function in RA patients. However, the specific effects of TNF inhibitors on endothelial cell function are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the mechanisms underpinning CZP effects on TNF-activated human endothelial cells. Methods: Human aortic endothelial cells (HAoECs) were cultured in vitro and exposed to a) TNF alone, b) TNF plus CZP, or c) neither agent. Microarray analysis was used to examine the transcriptional profile of cells treated for 6 hrs and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysed gene expression at 1, 3, 6 and 24 hrs. NF-κB localization and IκB degradation were investigated using immunocytochemistry, high content analysis and western blotting. Flow cytometry was conducted to detect microparticle release from HAoECs. Results: Transcriptional profiling revealed that while TNF alone had strong effects on endothelial gene expression, TNF and CZP in combination produced a global gene expression pattern similar to untreated control. The two most highly up-regulated genes in response to TNF treatment were adhesion molecules E-selectin and VCAM-1 (q 0.2 compared to control; p > 0.05 compared to TNF alone). The NF-κB pathway was confirmed as a downstream target of TNF-induced HAoEC activation, via nuclear translocation of NF-κB and degradation of IκB, effects which were abolished by treatment with CZP. In addition, flow cytometry detected an increased production of endothelial microparticles in TNF-activated HAoECs, which was prevented by treatment with CZP. Conclusions: We have found at a cellular level that a clinically available TNF inhibitor, CZP reduces the expression of adhesion molecule expression, and prevents TNF-induced activation of the NF-κB pathway. Furthermore, CZP prevents the production of microparticles by activated endothelial cells. This could be central to the prevention of inflammatory environments underlying these conditions and measurement of microparticles has potential as a novel prognostic marker for future cardiovascular events in this patient group. Disclosure statement: Y.A. received a research grant from UCB. I.B. received a research grant from UCB. S.H. received a research grant from UCB. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials