Revisiting Vaccine Hesitancy, Barriers and Motivators to Obtaining a Flu Vaccine in a New COVID-19 Pandemic World

Purpose To describe and compare patient perceived barriers and motivators and decision-making conflict between two groups of hospitalized patients, those who receive flu vaccines and those who do not. Data Sources Data collection during 2003 included extracting data from databases and mailing two surveys to 436 discharged patients. One hundred eight (108) patients participated in the study. Conclusions Top barriers included fear of side effects from vaccine (35%) and fear of contracting the flu (30%). Top motivators for obtaining a flu vaccine included previous vaccination (93%) and provider recommendation (62%). Barriers, motivators and patient decisional conflict differed depending upon patient vaccination status. Implications for Practice Given the potential negative consequences of contracting the flu, prevention is the best strategy. Prevention is contingent upon motivating patients to obtain an annual flu vaccine. Recommending flu vaccinations, offering vaccinations in convenient locations free of charge and discussing perceived barriers with patients may increase vaccinations among high-risk patients. Helping to clarify the advantages and disadvantages from the patient’s perspective may decrease decisional conflict and increase vaccination rates

Dietary carbon sources of mussels and tubeworms from Galápagos hydrothermal vents determined from tissue 14C activity

The large quantities of reduced carbon that are required to support the filter-feeding mytilid mussels (Mytilus sp.), vesi-comyid clams (Calyptogena sp.) and various other animals in the Galápagos hydrothermal vent systems are thought to be derived from either the in situ synthesis of particulate organic matter by chemoautotrophic, sulphide-oxidizing bacteria1,2 or by the advection of sedimentary organic carbon into the vent environment from surrounding areas3,4. In contrast, the dense populations of vestimentiferan tubeworms (Riftia pachyptila), which lack mouth organs and digestive tracts, apparently utilize organic carbon synthesized by symbiotic chemoautotrophs5. We present evidence here, based on 14C activities and 13C/12C ratios, that the principal source of dietary carbon for mussels and tubeworms is derived from the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIOC) in the vent effluent waters. © 1981 Nature Publishing Group

Fluxes of biogenic components from sediment trap deployment in circumpolar waters of the Drake Passage

Circumpolar surface waters dominate the circulation of the Southern Ocean and sustain one of the ocean's largest standing stocks of biomass thereby producing a significant output of biogenic components, mainly diatoms, to the bottom sediments. Generally transit of biogenic matter from the sea surface to the sea floor affects nutrient regeneration fuels benthic life and transfers signals to the sediment record1–5. Reliable quantification of the relationship between biological production, fractionation of skeletal and tissue components and bottom sediment accumulation depends on direct vertical flux measurements from sediment trap deployments6–9, which have proved to be most scientifically productive10–13. We now present data on vertical mass fluxes from the Southern Ocean and evidence for strong biogeochemical fractionation between organic carbon-, nitrogen- and phosphorus-containing compounds, siliceous and calcareous skeletal remains, and refractory aluminosilicates

MUC5AC (mucin 5AC, oligomeric mucus/gel-forming)

Review on MUC5AC (mucin 5AC, oligomeric mucus/gel-forming), with data on DNA, on the protein encoded, and where the gene is implicated

Composition and origin of sediments at DSDP Site 54-424

The sediments recovered on Deep Sea Drilling Project Leg 54 appear to be mixtures of the normal pelagic sediments of the area and hydrothermally produced manganese and iron phases. The latter are mineralogically and chemically very similar to phases recovered from surficial sampling of the mounds. The hydrothermal nontronite which is approximately 15 meters thick in the three holes is essentially free of carbonate or detrital contaminants. The basal sediments are similar to the carbonate oozes presently being deposited in the region, but are enriched in Mn and Fe. This enrichment appears to be the result of hydrothermal deposition that took place at or near the spreading center and may not be associated with the mounds formation. Three different hypotheses for the formation of the nontronite layer and the mounds deposits are considered. An initial deposition of a widespread nontronite layer and subsequent diapiric-like movement of the layer into carbonates could account for the observed stratigraphy; however, if this be correct, analogous deposits should be present in other DSDP sites. The second hypothesis - replacement of the normal sediments by nontronite - may be feasible, but the high purity of the nontronite requires dissolution and removal of refractory elements. The third hypothesis, metal deposition in an advancing oxidation gradient, is compatible with submersible observations of the mounds; however, it can account only for the high purity of the nontronite by very rapid deposition of the hydrothermal phases