Post-capitalist property

When writing about property and property rights in his imagined post-capitalist society of the future, Marx seemed to envisage ‘individual property’ co-existing with ‘socialized property’ in the means of production. As the social and political consequences of faltering growth and increasing inequality, debt and insecurity gradually manifest themselves, and with automation and artificial intelligence lurking in the wings, the future of capitalism, at least in its current form, looks increasingly uncertain. With this, the question of what property and property rights might look like in the future, in a potentially post-capitalist society, is becoming ever more pertinent. Is the choice simply between private property and markets, and public (state-owned) property and planning? Or can individual and social property in the (same) means of production co-exist, as Marx suggested? This paper explores ways in which they might, through an examination of the Chinese household responsibility system (HRS) and the ‘fuzzy’ and seemingly confusing regime of land ownership that it instituted. It examines the HRS against the backdrop of Marx’s ideas about property and subsequent (post-Marx) theorizing about the legal nature of property in which property has come widely to be conceptualized not as a single, unitary ‘ownership’ right to a thing (or, indeed, as the thing itself) but as a ‘bundle of rights’. The bundle-of-rights idea of property, it suggests, enables us to see not only that ‘individual’ and ‘socialized’ property’ in the (same) means of production might indeed co-exist, but that the range of institutional possibility is far greater than that between capitalism and socialism/communism as traditionally conceived

Sample Event

Description here.</p

Bovine colostrum supplementation and exercise performance: Potential mechanisms

Bovine colostrum (BC) is rich in immune, growth and antimicrobial factors, which promote tissue growth and the development of the digestive tract and immune function in neonatal calves. Although the value of BC to human adults is not well understood, supplementation with BC is becoming increasingly popular in trained athletes to promote exercise performance. The combined presence of insulin-like growth factors (IGF), transforming growth factors, immunoglobulins, cytokines, lactoferrin and lysozyme, in addition to hormones such as growth hormone, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone and glucocorticoids, would suggest that BC might improve immune function, gastrointestinal integrity and the neuroendocrine system, parameters that may be compromised as a result of intensive training. A review of studies investigating the influence of BC supplementation on exercise performance suggests that BC supplementation is most effective during periods of high-intensity training and recovery from high-intensity training, possibly as a result of increased plasma IGF-1, improved intramuscular buffering capacity, increases in lean body mass and increases in salivary IgA. However, there are contradicting data for most parameters that have been considered to date, suggesting that small improvements across a range of parameters might contribute to improved performance and recovery, although this cannot be concluded with certainty because the various doses and length of supplementation with BC in different studies prevent direct comparison of results. Future research on the influence of BC on sports performance will only be of value if the dose and length of supplementation of a well-defined BC product is standardized across studies, and the bioavailability of the active constituents in BC is determined

Treatment of severe COVID-19 with convalescent plasma in Bronx, NYC

Convalescent plasma with severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (CCP) may hold promise as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared the mortality and clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 who received 200 mL of CCP with a spike protein IgG titer ≥ 1:2430 (median 1:47,385) within 72 hours of admission with propensity score–matched controls cared for at a medical center in the Bronx, between April 13 and May 4, 2020. Matching criteria for controls were age, sex, body mass index, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, week of admission, oxygen requirement, D-dimer, lymphocyte counts, corticosteroid use, and anticoagulation use. There was no difference in mortality or oxygenation between CCP recipients and controls at day 28. When stratified by age, compared with matched controls, CCP recipients less than 65 years had 4-fold lower risk of mortality and 4-fold lower risk of deterioration in oxygenation or mortality at day 28. For CCP recipients, pretransfusion spike protein IgG, IgM, and IgA titers were associated with mortality at day 28 in univariate analyses. No adverse effects of CCP were observed. Our results suggest CCP may be beneficial for hospitalized patients less than 65 years, but data from controlled trials are needed to validate this finding and establish the effect of aging on CCP efficacy

Asymmetries and visual field summaries as predictors of glaucoma in the ocular hypertension treatment study

PURPOSE. To evaluate whether baseline visual field data and asymmetries between eyes predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) participants. METHODS. A new index, mean prognosis (MP), was designed for optimal combination of visual field thresholds, to discriminate between eyes that developed POAG from eyes that did not. Baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) in fellow eyes was used to construct measures of IOP asymmetry. Age-adjusted baseline thresholds were used to develop indicators of visual field asymmetry and summary measures of visual field defects. Marginal multivariate failure time models were constructed that relate the new index MP, IOP asymmetry, and visual field asymmetry to POAG onset for OHTS participants. RESULTS. The marginal multivariate failure time analysis showed that the MP index is significantly related to POAG onset (P &lt; 0.0001) and appears to be a more highly significant predictor of POAG onset than either mean deviation (MD; P = 0.17) or pattern standard deviation (PSD; P = 0.046). A 1-mm Hg increase in IOP asymmetry between fellow eyes is associated with a 17% increase in risk for development of POAG. When threshold asymmetry between eyes existed, the eye with lower thresholds was at a 37% greater risk of development of POAG, and this feature was more predictive of POAG onset than the visual field index MD, though not as strong a predictor as PSD. CONCLUSIONS. The MP index, IOP asymmetry, and binocular test point asymmetry can assist in clinical evaluation of eyes at risk of development of POAG.</p

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

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