Transformational Solutions of Self through Companion Animals

How consumers manage the dynamics between love and money can be intertwined in a myriad of ways. Based upon the growing presence of companion animals in U.S. households (now estimated at 62%) and related financial spend (over $50 billion in 2011) (APPA 2011), understanding consumers\u27 identity dynamics relating to companion animals may be theoretically insightful. The things we love exert a strong influence on our sense of self (Ahuvia 2005). Companion animals may be classified as extensions of oneself in addition to being associated with significant life events or experiences (Belk 1988; Ahuvia 2005). By understanding the meanings companion animals serve related to a person\u27s self-concept and integration within society may serve as relationship climate canaries (Brownlie 2008). Given fundamental human need for social relatedness (Baumeister and Leary 1995) and assertions of decline in one\u27s sense of community (Cushman 1990), do the roles one adopts as it relates to companion animals serve as adaptive solutions for social relatedness? Consumers\u27 motives for consumption and possession stem in large part from the meaning of consumption objects and the value that meaning provides (Richins 1994, 519). In North America, the freedom to create one\u27s identity comes with the consumer responsibility to self-define, suggesting that the goods one acquires may be particularly meaningful because they may serve to help construct and communicate one\u27s identity (McCracken 1986). Identities represent self-concepts because they reflect internalized role expectations within social relationships; the goal being to understand and explain how social structures affect self and self affects social behaviors (Stryker 2007)

Methods of fertility control in cats:Owner, breeder and veterinarian behavior and attitudes

Overview: Fertility control is important for population management of owned and unowned cats, provides health benefits at the individual level and can reduce unwanted sexually dimorphic behaviors such as roaming, aggression, spraying and calling. This article reviews the available evidence regarding European and American veterinarian, owner and pedigree cat breeder attitudes toward both surgical sterilization and non-surgical fertility control. It additionally presents new data on veterinarians’ and pedigree cat breeders’ use of, and attitudes toward, alternative modalities of fertility control. Proportion of cats that are neutered: Within the United States and Europe, the proportion of cats reported to be sterilized varies widely. Published estimates range from 27–93% for owned cats and 2–5% for cats trapped as part of a trap–neuter–return (TNR) program. In some regions and populations of cats, non-surgical fertility control is also used. Social context, cultural norms, individual preferences, economic considerations, legislation and professional organizations may all influence fertility control decisions for cats. Non-surgical methods of fertility control: Particularly in Europe, a limited number of non-surgical temporary contraceptives are available for cats; these include products with regulatory approval for cats as well as some used ‘off label’. Non-surgical methods remove the risk of complications related to surgery and offer potential to treat more animals in less time and at lower cost; they may also appeal to pedigree cat breeders seeking temporary contraception. However, concerns over efficacy, delivery methods, target species safety, duration and side effects exist with current non-surgical options. Research is under way to develop new methods to control fertility in cats without surgery. US and European veterinarians place high value on three perceived benefits of surgical sterilization: permanence, behavioral benefits and health benefits. Non-surgical options will likely need to share these benefits to be widely accepted by the veterinary community. </jats:sec

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