A (des)construção da identidade/diferença através da normalidade : surdez e homossexualidade

Orientadora: Profa. Dra. Sueli FernandesCoorientador: Prof. Dr. Jamil Cabral SierraDissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal do Paraná, Setor de Educação, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação. Defesa : Curitiba, 27/09/2019Inclui referências: p. 130-134Resumo: O campo de pesquisas envolvendo os surdos e a surdez tem sido responsável por inúmeras produções, em diferentes áreas do conhecimento, na perspectiva dos Estudos Surdos em Educação. Esse cenário é responsável por contextualizar o tema de estudo desta pesquisa: a investigação sobre a conexão entre a surdez e a homossexualidade a partir da construção da norma(lidade) e da operação de mecanismos de normalização que atravessam as experiências vivenciadas por surdos gays, de forma a aproximar, conhecer e compreender esses dois fenômenos que atravessam a identidade surda gay. O objetivo principal deste estudo pretendeu compreender como foram construídos os discursos normalizadores e problematizar seus desdobramentos na surdez e na homossexualidade na contemporaneidade. Os dados empíricos foram produzidos a partir de entrevistas semiestruturadas realizadas com quatro surdos que se declaram gays, com idade entre 25 e 50 anos, usuários da língua de sinais, que relataram experiências na família e na escola. A análise do material empírico resultou em três categorias analíticas: (i) o espelho da norma como estratégia de normalização; (ii) a medicalização das identidades surdas como estratégias de normalização; e (iii) a instituição familiar como polícia da sexualidade e das identidades surdas, discutidas a partir do aporte teórico dos Estudos Culturais, Estudos Surdos e Estudos de Gênero e Sexualidade. Os relatos refletem práticas de subjetivação vivenciadas pelos surdos gays marcadas pela subordinação a padrões de normalidade social aceitáveis, condicionados pela dupla dimensão da cultura ouvinte e da heteronormatividade. Os discursos patológicos/medicalizantes que circulam socialmente na escola e na família operam como mecanismo de controle, disciplinamento e regulação da diferença linguística/sexual dos surdos gays, acentuando processos de subordinação e marginalização por meio das práticas homofóbicas e ouvintistas. Palavras-chave: Surdo Gay. Surdez. Homossexualidade. NormalidadeAbstract: The research field involving deaf and deafness has been responsible for a great number of productions in different areas of knowledge focusing in Deaf Studies in Education. This scenery is responsible for contextualizing the study theme of this research: the investigation about a possible connection between deafness and homosexuality beginning from the construction of normality as well as from the operation of mechanisms of normalization that crossed the experiences lived on by the deaf gays so as to approach, to know, and understand these two phenomenon that cross the deaf gay identity. The main objective of this study had the intention of understanding how the normalized discourses have been developed and also inquiring its development in deafness and in homosexuality at present days. The empiric data have been developed from semi structured interview realized with four deaf who have declared themselves as gays between 25 and 50 years old, who were also users of language signs, and who also related experiences in family and school. The analysis of the empirical material resulted into three analytical categories: (I) the mirror of the rules as regulatory strategy (II) the medication in deaf identities as strategies of normalization (III) the familiar institution as policy of sexuality as well as deaf identities, discussed from the theoretical support of Cultural Studies, Deaf Studies, and Gender and Sexuality Studies. The report reflects practices of subjectivity lived by deaf gays marked by the subordination to patterns of social and normal acceptability adapted to the double dimension of the hearer culture and also to hetero normality. The pathologic discourses/ medical that is socially crossed in school and in family work as control mechanisms, discipline, and regulation of the difference in social linguistic of deaf group, emphasizing processes of subordination and also margining through homophobic and audist practices. Keywords: Gay Deaf. Deafness. Homosexuality. Normalit

Robot Impedance Control and Passivity Analysis with Inner Torque and Velocity Feedback Loops

Impedance control is a well-established technique to control interaction forces in robotics. However, real implementations of impedance control with an inner loop may suffer from several limitations. Although common practice in designing nested control systems is to maximize the bandwidth of the inner loop to improve tracking performance, it may not be the most suitable approach when a certain range of impedance parameters has to be rendered. In particular, it turns out that the viable range of stable stiffness and damping values can be strongly affected by the bandwidth of the inner control loops (e.g. a torque loop) as well as by the filtering and sampling frequency. This paper provides an extensive analysis on how these aspects influence the stability region of impedance parameters as well as the passivity of the system. This will be supported by both simulations and experimental data. Moreover, a methodology for designing joint impedance controllers based on an inner torque loop and a positive velocity feedback loop will be presented. The goal of the velocity feedback is to increase (given the constraints to preserve stability) the bandwidth of the torque loop without the need of a complex controller.Comment: 14 pages in Control Theory and Technology (2016

Vaccine effectiveness of heterologous CoronaVac plus BNT162b2 in Brazil

There is considerable interest in the waning of effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and vaccine effectiveness (VE) of booster doses. Using linked national Brazilian databases, we undertook a test-negative design study involving almost 14 million people (~16 million tests) to estimate VE of CoronaVac over time and VE of BNT162b2 booster vaccination against RT-PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death). Compared with unvaccinated individuals, CoronaVac VE at 14-30 d after the second dose was 55.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 54.3-55.7) against confirmed infection and 82.1% (95% CI: 81.4-82.8) against severe outcomes. VE decreased to 34.7% (95% CI: 33.1-36.2) against infection and 72.5% (95% CI: 70.9-74.0) against severe outcomes over 180 d after the second dose. A BNT162b2 booster, 6 months after the second dose of CoronaVac, improved VE against infection to 92.7% (95% CI: 91.0-94.0) and VE against severe outcomes to 97.3% (95% CI: 96.1-98.1) 14-30 d after the booster. Compared with younger age groups, individuals 80 years of age or older had lower protection after the second dose but similar protection after the booster. Our findings support a BNT162b2 booster vaccine dose after two doses of CoronaVac, particularly for the elderly

Two-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine protection against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths over time : a retrospective, population-based cohort study in Scotland and Brazil

Funding Information: This study is part of the EAVE II project. EAVE II is funded by the MRC (MC_PC_19075) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. This research is part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC_PC_20058). Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and Scottish Government Director General Health and Social Care. The original EAVE project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (11/46/23). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or the UK government. The Brazilian component is part of the Fiocruz VigiVac project on continuous digital evaluation of the national anti-COVID-19 immunisation programme. SVK and SA acknowledge funding from an NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the MRC (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). This partnership between Brazil and Scotland was established through funding from the NIHR (GHRG /16/137/99) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. This study was partially supported by a donation from the Fazer o Bem Faz Bem programme. The authors thank DATASUS for its excellent work in providing unidentified databases. GLW, MLB, and MB-N are research fellows from the Brazilian National Research Council. GLW acknowledges funding from FAPERJ (Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro; E-26/210.180/2020). We thank Dave Kelly from Albasoft (Inverness, UK) for his support with making primary care data available; Wendy Inglis-Humphrey, Vicky Hammersley, and Laura Brook (University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK); and Pam McVeigh, Amanda Burridge, and Afshin Dastafshan (Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK) for their support with project management and administration. Funding Information: SVK is a member of the UK Government's Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies subgroup on ethnicity, the Cabinet Office's International Best Practice Advisory Group, and was co-chair of the Scottish Government's Expert Reference Group on Ethnicity and COVID-19. CR reports grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Public Health Scotland, during the conduct of the study, and is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group, Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group. AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group and its Standing Committee on Pandemics; he is also a member of the UK Government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Risk Stratification Subgroup and a member of AstraZeneca's Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce. All roles are unremunerated. VdAO, VB, MLB, and MB-N are employees of Fiocruz, a federal public institution, which manufactures Vaxzevria in Brazil, through a full technology transfer agreement with AstraZeneca. Fiocruz allocates all its manufactured products to the Ministry of Health for the public health service use. All other authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information: This study is part of the EAVE II project. EAVE II is funded by the MRC (MC_PC_19075) with the support of BREATHE?The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. This research is part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC_PC_20058). Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and Scottish Government Director General Health and Social Care. The original EAVE project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (11/46/23). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or the UK government. The Brazilian component is part of the Fiocruz VigiVac project on continuous digital evaluation of the national anti-COVID-19 immunisation programme. SVK and SA acknowledge funding from an NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the MRC (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). This partnership between Brazil and Scotland was established through funding from the NIHR (GHRG /16/137/99) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. This study was partially supported by a donation from the Fazer o Bem Faz Bem programme. The authors thank DATASUS for its excellent work in providing unidentified databases. GLW, MLB, and MB-N are research fellows from the Brazilian National Research Council. GLW acknowledges funding from FAPERJ (Funda??o Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo ? Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro; E-26/210.180/2020). We thank Dave Kelly from Albasoft (Inverness, UK) for his support with making primary care data available; Wendy Inglis-Humphrey, Vicky Hammersley, and Laura Brook (University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK); and Pam McVeigh, Amanda Burridge, and Afshin Dastafshan (Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK) for their support with project management and administration. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licensePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Vaccine effectiveness of CoronaVac against COVID-19 among children in Brazil during the Omicron period.

Although severe COVID-19 in children is rare, they may develop multisystem inflammatory syndrome, long-COVID and downstream effects of COVID-19, including social isolation and disruption of education. Data on the effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine is scarce during the Omicron period. In Brazil, children between 6 to 11 years are eligible to receive the CoronaVac vaccine. We conducted a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness using 197,958 tests from January 21, 2022, to April 15, 2022, during the Omicron dominant period in Brazil among children aged 6 to 11 years. The estimated vaccine effectiveness for symptomatic infection was 39.8% (95% CI 33.7-45.4) at ≥14 days post-second dose. For hospital admission vaccine effectiveness was 59.2% (95% CI 11.3-84.5) at ≥14 days. Two doses of CoronaVac in children during the Omicron period showed low levels of protection against symptomatic infection, and modest levels against severe illness

Effectiveness of mRNA boosters after homologous primary series with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 against symptomatic infection and severe COVID-19 in Brazil and Scotland : a test-negative design case–control study

Background: Brazil and Scotland have used mRNA boosters in their respective populations since September 2021, with Omicron’s emergence accelerating their booster program. Despite this, both countries have reported substantial recent increases in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The duration of the protection conferred by the booster dose against symptomatic Omicron cases and severe outcomes is unclear. Methods and findings: Using a test-negative design, we analyzed national databases to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a primary series (with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) plus an mRNA vaccine booster (with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the period of Omicron dominance in Brazil and Scotland compared to unvaccinated individuals. Additional analyses included stratification by age group (18 to 49, 50 to 64, ≥65). All individuals aged 18 years or older who reported acute respiratory illness symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022, and April 23, 2022, in Brazil and Scotland were eligible for the study. At 14 to 29 days after the mRNA booster, the VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection of ChAdOx1 plus BNT162b2 booster was 51.6%, (95% confidence interval (CI): [51.0, 52.2], p < 0.001) in Brazil and 67.1% (95% CI [65.5, 68.5], p < 0.001) in Scotland. At ≥4 months, protection against symptomatic infection waned to 4.2% (95% CI [0.7, 7.6], p = 0.02) in Brazil and 37.4% (95% CI [33.8, 40.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland. VE against severe outcomes in Brazil was 93.5% (95% CI [93.0, 94.0], p < 0.001) at 14 to 29 days post-booster, decreasing to 82.3% (95% CI [79.7, 84.7], p < 0.001) and 98.3% (95% CI [87.3, 99.8], p < 0.001) to 77.8% (95% CI [51.4, 89.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland for the same periods. Similar results were obtained with the primary series of BNT162b2 plus homologous booster. Potential limitations of this study were that we assumed that all cases included in the analysis were due to the Omicron variant based on the period of dominance and the limited follow-up time since the booster dose. Conclusions: We observed that mRNA boosters after a primary vaccination course with either mRNA or viral-vector vaccines provided modest, short-lived protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron but substantial and more sustained protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 3 months

CoronaVac vaccine is effective in preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 in pregnant women in Brazil: a test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: More doses of CoronaVac have been administered worldwide than any other COVID-19 vaccine. However, the effectiveness of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines in pregnant women is still unknown. We estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of CoronaVac against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 in pregnant women in Brazil. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative design study in all pregnant women aged 18-49 years with COVID-19-related symptoms in Brazil from March 15, 2021, to October 03, 2021, linking records of negative and positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests to national vaccination records. We also linked records of test-positive cases with notifications of severe, hospitalised or fatal COVID-19. Using logistic regression, we estimated the adjusted odds ratio and VE against symptomatic COVID-19 and against severe COVID-19 by comparing vaccine status in test-negative subjects to test-positive symptomatic cases and severe cases. RESULTS: Of the 19,838 tested pregnant women, 7424 (37.4%) tested positive for COVID-19 and 588 (7.9%) had severe disease. Only 83% of pregnant women who received the first dose of CoronaVac completed the vaccination scheme. A single dose of the CoronaVac vaccine was not effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19. The effectiveness of two doses of CoronaVac was 41% (95% CI 27.1-52.2) against symptomatic COVID-19 and 85% (95% CI 59.5-94.8) against severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A complete regimen of CoronaVac in pregnant women was effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and highly effective against severe illness in a setting that combined high disease burden and marked COVID-19-related maternal deaths

Lutzomyia longipalpis Saliva Induces Heme Oxygenase-1 Expression at Bite Sites

Sand flies bite mammalian hosts to obtain a blood meal, driving changes in the host inflammatory response that support the establishment of Leishmania infection. This effect is partially attributed to components of sand fly saliva, which are able to recruit and activate leukocytes. Our group has shown that heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) favors Leishmania survival in infected cells by reducing inflammatory responses. Here, we show that exposure to sand fly bites is associated with induction of HO-1 in vivo. Histopathological analyses of skin specimens from human volunteers experimentally exposed to sand fly bites revealed that HO-1 and Nrf2 are produced at bite sites in the skin. These results were recapitulated in mice ears injected with a salivary gland sonicate (SGS) or exposed to sand fly bites, indicating that vector saliva may be a key factor in triggering HO-1 expression. Resident skin macrophages were the main source HO-1 at 24–48 h after bites. Additionally, assays in vivo after bites and in vitro after stimulation with saliva both demonstrated that HO-1 production by macrophages was Nrf2-dependent. Collectively, our data demonstrates that vector saliva induces early HO-1 production at the bite sites, representing a major event associated with establishment of naturally-transmitted Leishmania infections

Effectiveness of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil: a test-negative, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have proven highly effective among individuals without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection and severe outcomes among individuals with previous infection is less clear. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of four COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection, hospitalisation, and death for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Using national COVID-19 notification, hospitalisation, and vaccination datasets from Brazil, we did a test-negative, case-control study to assess the effectiveness of four vaccines (CoronaVac [Sinovac], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AstraZeneca], Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen], and BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech]) for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched cases with RT-PCR positive, symptomatic COVID-19 with up to ten controls with negative RT-PCR tests who presented with symptomatic illnesses, restricting both groups to tests done at least 90 days after an initial infection. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the odds of test positivity and the odds of hospitalisation or death due to COVID-19, according to vaccination status and time since first or second dose of vaccines. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2020, and Nov 11, 2021, we identified 213 457 individuals who had a subsequent, symptomatic illness with RT-PCR testing done at least 90 days after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection and after the vaccination programme started. Among these, 30 910 (14·5%) had a positive RT-PCR test consistent with reinfection, and we matched 22 566 of these cases with 145 055 negative RT-PCR tests from 68 426 individuals as controls. Among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 39·4% (95% CI 36·1-42·6) for CoronaVac, 56·0% (51·4-60·2) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 44·0% (31·5-54·2) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 64·8% (54·9-72·4) for BNT162b2. For the two-dose vaccine series (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and BNT162b2), effectiveness against symptomatic infection was significantly greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Effectiveness against hospitalisation or death 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 81·3% (75·3-85·8) for CoronaVac, 89·9% (83·5-93·8) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 57·7% (-2·6 to 82·5) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 89·7% (54·3-97·7) for BNT162b2. INTERPRETATION: All four vaccines conferred additional protection against symptomatic infections and severe outcomes among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The provision of a full vaccine series to individuals after recovery from COVID-19 might reduce morbidity and mortality. FUNDING: Brazilian National Research Council, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, JBS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Generalitat de Catalunya