Ações afirmativas e o debate sobre racismo no Brasil Afirmative actions and the debate on racism in Brazil

O tema "ações afirmativas" tem dividido a opinião pública e esquentado o debate acadêmico. Enquanto alguns especialistas e militantes negros entendem a introdução de ações afirmativas como uma forma de combate ao racismo, uma vez que, segundo esta interpretação, a discriminação positiva ajudará os historicamente desprivilegiados a criar e fortalecer uma identidade positiva, outros vêem em tais medidas um ataque perigoso contra a "maneira tradicional brasileira" de se relacionar com as "diferenças humanas" e temem que políticas como essas possam instigar conflitos raciais abertos. Embora os defensores e opositores à introdução de projetos de ação afirmativa raramente explicitem o que entendem por racismo e como interpretam este fenômeno social, é possível detectar nesses discursos distintas linhas de argumentação que remetem a orientações teóricas diferentes no que diz respeito à análise de categorias como "raça" e "cor".<br>The "affirmative action" issue has split the public opinion and heated up the academic debate. While some experts and black activists see the affirmatives actions as a way to fight racism, since the positive discrimination could help the historically underprivileged to create and empower a positive identity, others see such measures as a dangerous attack against the "traditional brazilian way" of dealing with "human differences". The latter fear that such policies may unleash racial conflicts. Although both sides barely explain what they mean for racism and how they understand that social phenomenon, it is possible to discern in those discourses different lines of argument, which can be related to different theoretical orientations about the analysis of such concepts as "race" and "color"

Host factors are associated with vaginal microbiome structure in pregnancy in the ECHO Cohort Consortium

Using pooled vaginal microbiota data from pregnancy cohorts (N = 683 participants) in the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program, we analyzed 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences to identify clinical and demographic host factors that associate with vaginal microbiota structure in pregnancy both within and across diverse cohorts. Using PERMANOVA models, we assessed factors associated with vaginal community structure in pregnancy, examined whether host factors were conserved across populations, and tested the independent and combined effects of host factors on vaginal community state types (CSTs) using multinomial logistic regression models. Demographic and social factors explained a larger amount of variation in the vaginal microbiome in pregnancy than clinical factors. After adjustment, lower education, rather than self-identified race, remained a robust predictor of L. iners dominant (CST III) and diverse (CST IV) (OR = 8.44, 95% CI = 4.06–17.6 and OR = 4.18, 95% CI = 1.88–9.26, respectively). In random forest models, we identified specific taxonomic features of host factors, particularly urogenital pathogens associated with pregnancy complications (Aerococcus christensenii and Gardnerella spp.) among other facultative anaerobes and key markers of community instability (L. iners). Sociodemographic factors were robustly associated with vaginal microbiota structure in pregnancy and should be considered as sources of variation in human microbiome studies

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