Are there differences and complementarities between senior and young entrepreneurs? An intergenerational perspective

Social exclusion related to the unemployment of vulnerable population groups constitutes a crucial limitation to achieving a sustainable world. In particular, young and senior populations have specific characteristics that put them at risk of exclusion from the labor market. This circumstance has motivated an attempt to foster cooperation between these age groups to enable them to develop entrepreneurial initiatives that will contribute to close this social vulnerability gap. We approach this topic by focusing on intergenerational entrepreneurship, understood as entrepreneuring projects jointly undertaken by seniors and young adults. The objective of this study was to identify the differences and complementarities between senior and young entrepreneurs with a view to enabling them to develop viable intergenerational entrepreneurial projects, with special emphasis in the motivational push, pull, and blocking factors that affect them. This kind of entrepreneurial initiative fosters knowledge transfer and experience between age groups, promotes job creation and social inclusion, improves a sense of belonging, and, thus, contributes to the construction of a stronger society serving as an engine for sustainable development. Therefore, intergenerational entrepreneurship can be considered a form of social innovation. A mixed-methods approach was utilized in this study, using quantitative data from a questionnaire as a starting point for the characterization and identification of senior and young entrepreneurial profiles, and qualitative data from focus groups, which enabled us to identify complementarities among generations. The results show that there are significant differences between youths and seniors in terms of the motivations and factors that push, pull, or block the decision to form an intergenerational entrepreneurial partnership. These differences can be interpreted as complementarities that can boost intergenerational cooperation to promote social inclusion.This research was funded by IVI project (2018-1-FR01-KA204-047946). Erasmus+ Key Action 204, funded with support from the European Commissio

XV International Congress of Control Electronics and Telecommunications: "The role of technology in times of pandemic and post-pandemic: innovation and development for strategic social and productive sectors"

La anterior selección, motivados por la aseveración de Manuel Castells -hace casi 20 años ya- que la innovación y la difusión de la tecnología parecía ser la herramienta apropiada para el desarrollo en la era de la información. Este 2020, sin embargo, ante la situación disruptiva que aquejó y aqueja a la sociedad red como una estructura social emergente de la Era de la Información basada en redes de producción, energizadas por el poder y la experiencia; falló y debe reencontrar su rumbo. Es así que los problemas acuciantes, ahora, fueron: la atención sanitaria y la superación de la epidemia de Sars Cov 2; tomó forma la, hasta entonces, visión irrealista de Castells que … no podemos avanzar con nuestros modelos de desarrollo actual, destruyendo nuestro entorno y excluyendo a la mayor parte de la humanidad de los beneficios de la revolución tecnológica más extraordinaria de la historia, sin sufrir una devastadora reacción por parte de la sociedad y la naturaleza. Fue así que el Cuarto Mundo, específicamente, donde la suficiencia de recurso humano, de capital, trabajo, información y mercado -vinculados todos a través de la tecnología- supuso que atendería eficazmente a través de la población que podía por su capacidad hacer uso racional y profesional del conocimiento, las necesidades de la mayoritaria población vulnerable y vulnerada. Por lo anterior, poner en el centro a las personas, en entornos de tarea y trabajo globales hiperconectados combinando espacios físicos, corrientes de información con canales de conexión expeditos, y formando profesionales del conocimiento que asuman y afronten los retos derivados de la transformación digital de empresas, universidades, y organizaciones, pero en condiciones de equidad y sujetos de prosperidad, será el desafío en los escenarios presentes y futuros inmediatos.The previous selection, motivated by the assertion of Manuel Castells -almost 20 years ago- that innovation and diffusion of technology seemed to be the appropriate tool for development in the information age. This 2020, however, in the face of the disruptive situation that afflicted and continues to afflict the network society as an emerging social structure of the Information Age based on production networks, energized by power and experience; He failed and must find his way again. Thus, the pressing problems now were: health care and overcoming the Sars Cov 2 epidemic; Castells' until then unrealistic vision took shape that... we cannot advance with our current development models, destroying our environment and excluding the majority of humanity from the benefits of the most extraordinary technological revolution in history, without suffering a devastating reaction from society and nature. It was thus that the Fourth World, specifically, where the sufficiency of human resources, capital, work, information and market - all linked through technology - meant that it would serve effectively through the population that could, due to its capacity, make rational use. and knowledge professional, the needs of the majority vulnerable and vulnerable population. Therefore, putting people at the center, in hyperconnected global task and work environments, combining physical spaces, information flows with expedited connection channels, and training knowledge professionals who assume and face the challenges derived from the digital transformation of companies, universities, and organizations, but in conditions of equality and subject to prosperity, will be the challenge in the present and immediate future scenarios.Bogot

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols