Sentidos da vulnerabilidade: característica, condição, princípio

Vulnerability is a commonly used term from the current language, particularly in the last decade it has been more frequently used in bioethics discourse. This process resulted in the enunciation of the “respect for human vulnerability” as an ethical principle in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, from UNESCO, approved in October 2005. In this context there is increasing effort to strictly define the meaning that vulnerability can and must assume, in bioethics field ”“ what we are here trying to contribute to. To reach our objectives, we will start from the etimological concept of the term, as a way to go back to its conceptual origin, we will also take the greatest texts about contemporaneous ethics, in which “vulnerability” is referred in a technical sense and precise way, and we will explore the differ- ent modalities of its evocation in the bioethics field specifying its practical capacity.Vulnerabilidade é um termo comum na linguagem corrente que, principalmente na última década, tem se tornado cada vez mais freqüente no discurso bioético. Este processo culminou com a enunciação do “respeito pela vulnerabilidade humana” como princípio ético na Declaração Universal sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos, da UNESCO, aprovada em outubro de 2005. Neste contexto, tem aumentado o empenho em definir rigorosamente a significação que a noção de vulnerabilidade pode e deve assumir no domínio específico da bioética ”“ objetivo para o qual queremos contribuir com esta reflexão. Para tal, recuaremos à noção etimológica do termo como fundamento objetivo da sua significação conceitual, retomaremos os grandes textos da reflexão ética contemporânea em que a “vulnerabilidade” é referida com um sentido técnico preciso e exploraremos as diferentes modalidades da sua evocação no âmbito da bioética, especificando igualmente a sua capacidade operativa

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men