Macrologística de las vías terrestres de Colombia, durante el plan nacional de desarrollo 2014 – 2018, y su influencia en la competitividad del puerto internacional sociedad portuaria regional de Cartagena de indias sprc

En el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2014 – 2018, el Gobierno Nacional de Colombia llevó cabo proyectos estratégicos para la infraestructura de transporte. Uno de ellos se estructuró a través de la Agencia Nacional de Infraestructura y posteriormente se inició la contratación del programa conocido como la Cuarta Generación de Concesiones (Vías 4G) que contempla más de 40 proyectos con una inversión cercana a los 47 billones de pesos, algunas de estas obras ya se han ejecutado. Este tipo de estrategias son necesarias para el crecimiento sostenido de la demanda mundial de productos, para ayudar a Colombia a mejorar su atrasada infraestructura vial y ayudar al país a ser más competitivo. En este estudio, se toma como punto de referencia al puerto internacional Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena de Indias SPRC, con el fin de identificar la evolución de sus indicadores logísticos y determinar los efectos de las vías 4G en Colombia.RESUMEN ............................................................................... viABSTRACT ............................................................................ viiINTRODUCCIÓN ..................................................................... 1OBJETIVOS .............................................................................. 5Objetivo general ..................................................................... 5CAPÍTULO I ............................................................................. 61. MACROLOGÍSTICA Y COMPETITIVIDAD .................... 61.1 Relación entre Macrologística y Competitividad . 91.1.1. Macrologística y Competitividad de Asia .............. 101.1.2. Macrologística y Competitividad de Europa .......... 111.1.3. Macrologística y Competitividad de Estados Unidos ............ 131.1.4. Macrologística y Competitividad de Latinoamérica .............. 141.1.5. Macrologística y Competitividad de Colombia ..... 171.2. Macrologística y Terminales Marítimas: influencia sobre la competitividad nacional .............................................................................................. 191.3. Competitividad Portuaria ............................................. 201.3.1. Factores que determinan la competitividad de un puerto ...... 21CAPÍTULO II .......................................................................... 222. PLAN NACIONAL DE DESARROLLO. .......................... 222.1 Análisis General de la Macrologística Vial Terrestre de los Planes Nacionales de Desarrollo 2010 - 2014 y 2014 - 2018............................... 232.1.1. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2010 – 2014 .............. 242.1.2. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2014 – 2018 .............. 252.2. Desarrollo de las Vías Terrestres del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2014 – 2018 .............. 29CAPÍTULO III......................................................................... 343. SOCIEDAD PORTUARIA REGIONAL DE CARTAGENA DE INDIAS SPRC ................. 343.1. Infraestructura Logística de la Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena de Indias SPRC. ............................... 353.1.1. Equipos Portuarios de la Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena SPRC ...... 373.1.2. Áreas y Capacidades de Bodegas y Patios de la SPRC .......... 383.2. Indicadores Logísticos de la Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena de Indias SPRC y su evolución (2000 – 2018)..............403.3. Efectos del desarrollo de las vías terrestres en la competitividad nacional, teniendo en cuenta los Indicadores Logísticos de la Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena de Indias SPRC ................................ 44¡CONCLUSIÓN ....................................................................... 49BIBLIOGRAFÍA ..................................................................... 52En el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2014 – 2018, el Gobierno Nacional de Colombia llevó cabo proyectos estratégicos para la infraestructura de transporte. Uno de ellos se estructuró a través de la Agencia Nacional de Infraestructura y posteriormente se inició la contratación del programa conocido como la Cuarta Generación de Concesiones (Vías 4G) que contempla más de 40 proyectos con una inversión cercana a los 47 billones de pesos, algunas de estas obras ya se han ejecutado. Este tipo de estrategias son necesarias para el crecimiento sostenido de la demanda mundial de productos, para ayudar a Colombia a mejorar su atrasada infraestructura vial y ayudar al país a ser más competitivo. En este estudio, se toma como punto de referencia al puerto internacional Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena de Indias SPRC, con el fin de identificar la evolución de sus indicadores logísticos y determinar los efectos de las vías 4G en Colombia.Pregrad

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortiu (INICC) report, data summary of 43 countries for 2007-2012. Device-associated module

We report the results of an International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2007-December 2012 in 503 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. During the 6-year study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) U.S. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definitions for device-associated health care–associated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 605,310 patients hospitalized in the INICC's ICUs for an aggregate of 3,338,396 days. Although device utilization in the INICC's ICUs was similar to that reported from ICUs in the U.S. in the CDC's NHSN, rates of device-associated nosocomial infection were higher in the ICUs of the INICC hospitals: the pooled rate of central line–associated bloodstream infection in the INICC's ICUs, 4.9 per 1,000 central line days, is nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.9 per 1,000 central line days reported from comparable U.S. ICUs. The overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also higher (16.8 vs 1.1 per 1,000 ventilator days) as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (5.5 vs 1.3 per 1,000 catheter days). Frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas isolates to amikacin (42.8% vs 10%) and imipenem (42.4% vs 26.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (71.2% vs 28.8%) and imipenem (19.6% vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC's ICUs compared with the ICUs of the CDC's NHSN

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