MP25 The Problem of Freight Car Supply

As early as 1907 the Interstate Commerce Commission held extensive hearings on freight car shortages. At frequent intervals ever since, Congress and the commission have addressed themselves to the problem of freight car supply with considerable vigor but meager results. Allegations of an inadequate supply of freight cars have been widespread in recent years. The decline in the number of freight cars is easy to document: between 1959 and 1968, the number of cars used in grain transport (boxcars and covered hopper cars) declined by 26%. If, however, consideration is given to changes in car capacity and car miles per day, then grain car supply, as measured by ton-miles of grain transported, actually increased by 14 % during this 10-year period. Furthermore, a study conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1969 revealed that, on an average day in 1968, there were three boxcar I? and covered hopper cars available in the Midwest Region for everyone ordered by shippers. Nevertheless, on this same average day, shippers received only 75 to 80% of the freight cars ordered, owing to malfunctioning of the car allocation system. When freight cars move beyond the lines of the owning railroad, the railroad having possession must pay the owning railroad a car-rental charge known as per diem. The Association of American Railroads and the Interstate Commerce Commission have relied upon an inflexible and inadequate car-rental charge and a comprehensive body of car-service rules and car-service orders to secure return of freight cars to owning roads or to points of greatest need, as defined by the AAR and the ICC. Thus car allocation, at least during periods of heavy demand, is reminiscent of the decision-making process in a centrally planned socialist system. If a car-rental exchange market were to be established, carrental rates would be determined by competitive bidding. Freight cars would then move toward points of greatest shipper demand and the ICC would find it unnecessary to issue arbitrary orders to influence car distribution. Moreover, whenever such competitively-determined rates rose above the prospective daily ownership costs of new freight cars, it would provide an incentive for the acquisition of additional freight cars. Such a car-rental exchange market could be administered by the Car Service Division of the AAR, free from the political considerations which now play a major role in freight car distribution

Movements of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and greenspotted (S. chlorostictus) rockfishes in a Monterey submarine canyon: implications for the design of marine reserves

In August and September of 1997 and 1998, we used SCUBA techniques to surgically implant Vemco V16 series acoustic transmitters in 6 greenspotted rockfish (Sebastes chlorostictus) and 16 bocaccio (S. paucispinis) on the flank of Soquel Canyon in Monterey Bay, California. Fish were captured at depths of 100–200 m and reeled up to a depth of approximately 20 m, where a team of SCUBA divers anesthetized and surgically implanted acoustic transmitters in them. Tagged fish were released on the seafloor at the location of catch. An array of recording receivers on the seafloor enabled the tracking of horizontal and vertical fish movements for a three-month period. Greenspotted rockfish tagged in 1997 exhibited almost no vertical movement and showed limited horizontal movement. Two of these tagged fish spent more than 90% of the time in a 0.58-km2 area. Three other tagged greenspotted rockfish spent more than 60% of the time in a 1.6-km2 area but displayed frequent horizontal movements of at least 3 km. Bocaccio exhibited somewhat greater movements. Of the 16 bocaccio tagged in 1998, 10 spent less than 10% of the time in the approximately 12-km2 study area. One fish stayed in the study area for about 50% of the study time. Signals from the remaining 5 fish were recorded in the study area the entire time. Bocaccio frequently moved vertically 10–20 m and occasionally displayed vertical movements of 100 m or greater

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in 45,965 adults from the general population of the United Kingdom

We report that in a cohort of 45,965 adults, who were receiving either the ChAdOx1 or the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, in those who had no prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, seroconversion rates and quantitative antibody levels after a single dose were lower in older individuals, especially in those aged >60 years. Two vaccine doses achieved high responses across all ages. Antibody levels increased more slowly and to lower levels with a single dose of ChAdOx1 compared with a single dose of BNT162b2, but waned following a single dose of BNT162b2 in older individuals. In descriptive latent class models, we identified four responder subgroups, including a ‘low responder’ group that more commonly consisted of people aged >75 years, males and individuals with long-term health conditions. Given our findings, we propose that available vaccines should be prioritized for those not previously infected and that second doses should be prioritized for individuals aged >60 years. Further data are needed to better understand the extent to which quantitative antibody responses are associated with vaccine-mediated protection

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during multiple Omicron variant waves in the UK general population

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections increased substantially after Omicron variants emerged. Large-scale community-based comparisons across multiple Omicron waves of reinfection characteristics, risk factors, and protection afforded by previous infection and vaccination, are limited. Here we studied ~45,000 reinfections from the UK’s national COVID-19 Infection Survey and quantified the risk of reinfection in multiple waves, including those driven by BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5, and BQ.1/CH.1.1/XBB.1.5 variants. Reinfections were associated with lower viral load and lower percentages of self-reporting symptoms compared with first infections. Across multiple Omicron waves, estimated protection against reinfection was significantly higher in those previously infected with more recent than earlier variants, even at the same time from previous infection. Estimated protection against Omicron reinfections decreased over time from the most recent infection if this was the previous or penultimate variant (generally within the preceding year). Those 14–180 days after receiving their most recent vaccination had a lower risk of reinfection than those >180 days from their most recent vaccination. Reinfection risk was independently higher in those aged 30–45 years, and with either low or high viral load in their most recent previous infection. Overall, the risk of Omicron reinfection is high, but with lower severity than first infections; both viral evolution and waning immunity are independently associated with reinfection

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey

Background: Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. Methods: Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated crosssectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. Findings: Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29–0·54) to 0·06% (0·04–0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17–24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17–24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45–68%, dependent on calendar time. Interpretation: Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards