"Social isolation results in higher likelihood of mortality, whether measured objectively or subjectively. Cumulative data from 70 independent prospective studies, with 3,407,134 participants followed for an average of 7 years, revealed a significant effect of social isolation, loneliness, and living alone on odds of mortality. After accounting for multiple covariates, the increased likelihood of death was 26% for reported loneliness, 29% for social isolation, and 32% for living alone. These data indicated essentially no difference between objective and subjective measures of social isolation when predicting mortality."
Holt-Lunstad, J. et al. (2015): Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015, Vol. 10(2), pp. 227–237 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25910392/
"Results Of the 35 925 records retrieved, 23 papers met inclusion criteria for the narrative review. They reported data from 16 longitudinal datasets, for a total of 4628 CHD and 3002 stroke events recorded over follow-up periods ranging from 3 to 21 years. Reports of 11 CHD studies and 8 stroke studies provided data suitable for meta-analysis. Poor social relationships were associated with a 29% increase in risk of incident CHD (pooled relative risk: 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59) and a 32% increase in risk of stroke (pooled relative risk: 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.68). Subgroup analyses did not identify any differences by gender. Conclusions Our findings suggest that deficiencies in social relationships are associated with an increased risk of developing CHD and stroke. Future studies are needed to investigate whether interventions targeting loneliness and social isolation can help to prevent two of the leading causes of death and disability in high-income countries."
Valtorta, N. K. et al. (2016): Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart Vol. 102, pp. 1009–1016 https://heart.bmj.com/content/102/13/1009
The reason why new power companies have stopped accepting bids or have withdrawn from the business is because the days when this JEPX spot market price reaches 80 yen/kWh have been going on and on since the beginning of 2010.
The electricity market is a market. If there is a surplus of electricity, the bid price goes down, and if there is a shortage of electricity, the bid price goes up. The spot market is a blind single-price auction, which means that once a contract price is determined, all market prices are traded at that price. Even if Masuda-san bids 10 yen, if many people bid 20 yen, it will be 20 yen, and if many people bid 5 yen, it will be 5 yen.
Then what happens? Many people think, "I'm going to buy it at the imbalance fee of 80 yen/kWh anyway, so I'll bid 80 yen for it. Here is the URL of Enexchange's website, which shows the spot market price in an easy-to-understand manner.
How much is the gross profit on something that sells for 25 yen? 8 yen, 5 yen, 3 yen? Let's assume that 90 out of every 100 jobs generate a gross profit of 5 yen, which is a profit of 450 yen. If 10 out of 100 sell at that price, the profit is 550 yen.
450 - 550 = -100.
This is the impact of a spot market price of 80 yen. Imagine if you had a customer base of tens of thousands of dollars, and you have to blow millions of dollars every day for a month. I think you can understand a little bit of the logic behind the suspension of acceptance and shutdown of business.
Of course, calculating the cost of procuring electricity is not this simple. I mean, I can't write about the inside story of procurement in my business because it would violate confidentiality. I wrote what I could find out just from the spot market, where the amounts are visualized by the general public. I didn't tell the whole story, if you think about it. Sorry. It's a title fraud.
In essence, I think "don't liberalize the infrastructure in the first place" is right. However, to put some position talk into it, I think that the various things that happened in the aftermath of Fukushima and the licking at the Kashiwazaki nuclear power plant were the result of being lenient because it was infrastructure, and I think there is some nuance to that.
However, I don't think that the designers of the system anticipated this level of instability in the power supply when the system was liberalized in April 2004. I was impressed when the supply-demand crunch warning came out. I was like, "This is it! That rumored ！！！！ Supply and demand crunch alert: ！！！！！！！" I was so excited. There's no way there's going to be rolling blackouts! It's about to happen!
However, in the extreme, retailers are wholesalers, and while they are wholesalers, the products they sell are not all that different. How can you make a difference in a commodity like electricity? It is usually impossible. It's hard to add value to a product because it's all about price. Of course it's not impossible. There are plans, decarbonization, optional services, and so on. But there is no difference in the electricity itself. I think it's possible to point out that the reason why various new electric power companies flocked to the market was because hyenas gathered in the industry that was assured of a sweet deal in infrastructure ......, and that's true for a percentage of the population. I think all electric power companies are looking for ways to add value to electricity.
A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.
Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.
|4+||この年齢制限指定の App は好ましくない内容を一切含みません。|
|9+|| この年齢制限指定の App には以下のコンテンツが含まれることがあり、9 歳未満の子どもには不適切な場合があります。|
|12+||この年齢制限指定の App には以下のコンテンツが含まれることがあり、12 歳未満の子どもには不適切な場合があります。|
The content may be inappropriate for audiences under 13.
What's the difference between "general" and "teen and up" or "mature" and "explicit"?
This is left to the creator's judgment. People disagree passionately about the nature and explicitness of content to which younger audiences should be exposed. The creator's discretion to choose between "general" and "teen and up" or between "mature" and "explicit" is absolute: we will not mediate any disputes about those decisions. Instead, we encourage creators to consider community norms, whether fandom-specific or more general (such as how you'd expect a video game or movie with similar content to be rated), in selecting a rating.
What's the difference between "teen and up" and "mature"?
Likewise, this is almost entirely up to the creator's judgment. In response to valid complaints about highly explicit content, the abuse team may redesignate a fanwork marked "general" or "teen and up" to "not rated," as explained in the abuse policy, but our policy is generally to defer to the creator's decision.
"English evolves too fast for me." https://twitter.com/yukihiro_matz/status/1041839692944044032
I'm having a few days off so I want to spend the time learning Julia. I'm working mostly in R and Python, and my work involved a lot of Bayesian stuffs which I usually use either Stan or PyMC3 for. Recently I've been playing around with Julia, and I've heard a lot of praises for Turing.jl for probabilistic programming. I wonder if anyone here ever used it? What are some pros and cons against, say, Stan or PyMC3?
Turing.jl dev here. There are various differences between Turing, Stan and PyMC. Most importantly, Turing is only adding a thin layer to your Julia code, and you can, therefore, use any Julia code or library that exists in your models. This means you can easily use NN, the GPU, ODEs and whatever you like. By doing so, Turing is also more easily hackable. Another big difference is that Turing allows you to combine samplers and provides inference algorithms for continuous and discrete RVs. For the continuous case, we have an excellent implementation of Stans HMC and other variants, provided in a library that also can be used independently. The support for discrete RVs is mostly using particle Gibbs, but we are working on a JAGS style sampler atm. That said, Turing is much younger than the other PPLs. We probably lack specific tools, or you might run in some corner cases we didn’t think of, but we are working hard on getting bugs fixed ASAP and respond to questions quickly.
1 Most of what I'm about to write is no different from what I've said and done in the past. However, I have been asked the same question repeatedly, so I would like to reiterate it. We have received many inquiries from overseas as well, so we should have prepared the same content in English, but due to time constraints, I'm afraid I'll have to skip it. This article is designed to be read without basic knowledge of infectious diseases and jargon, but it is rather difficult to understand. Please forgive me for that.
2 The fact that the number of COVID-19 reports in Japan is very low compared to other countries is attracting attention from home and abroad. Is it true? It has been pointed out that the number of tests is so small that we may be misreading the actual number of infected people.
3 However, this point is wrong at various layers. In the first place, Japan does not aim to capture all the numbers of COVID-19. Whether it's administrative testing or insured care, the state basically has a testing strategy in mind to diagnose, hospitalize, and isolate critically ill patients who need to be hospitalized. It is natural that they "haven't figured it out" and they don't intend to. That's not a bad thing.In fact, the situation is the same in every country, large or small, and no country, whether in the United States, Europe, or Asia, is aiming to "capture the whole number.
The WHO is not asking for such a thing. But instead, Japan gives PCR to asymptomatic returnees and isolates asymptomatic test-positive people in hospital (wasn't it home for people with minor illnesses?). It has not been coherent in its principles. So, people get anxious because "we're not sure what they want to do". It's a failure in the press.
4 The difference between Korea and Japan is the "result" and not the "purpose". In South Korea, where the number of infected people had surged in one place, we had to focus on inspections in and around the area. If such a phenomenon (let's call it an overshoot) occurs in Japan, the number of inspections will increase. When the situation is different, arguing only on the basis of the number of tests without observing the situation is like trying to say, "That team made 50 sliding tackles while this team made only one," without watching a football game. In games where you don't have to slide (e.g., when you're in possession the whole time), even 0 times isn't a "mistake," and of course 50 times isn't a mistake.
There are many diseases for which the total number of patients is not known. In Japan, we do not have a "total" number of influenza cases, but only a fixed-point observation. Because that's enough information, both epidemiologically and in terms of infection control. There is no accurate data on how many cases of the common cold occur each year in Japan. It's also a mistake to say that you can tell by looking at the receipt data, because many cold patients (like me) don't see a doctor and wait until they are cured naturally. Not only in medicine, but also in economics and political science, data are mostly based on sampling to estimate population numbers, and "whole numbers" is an inefficient way of grasping the situation.
6 We have not seen the devastation in Japan as in Italy, Spain or New York City. There is no medical collapse in a critically ill patient, no use of the operating room as an ICU, no piling up of bodies on a skating rink with no place to put them. Even if the "numbers" are not known, it is a fact that the current situation in Japan (including Tokyo) is much better controlled than in other countries.
7 Even so, you may be interested in "Well, what about the actual situation? There are estimates. For example, Dr. Hiroshi Nishiura and his group estimate that the number of mild illnesses in Japan may be twice the reported number. The catch rate is 0.44, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.37-0.50.
8 Although the study was based on data from China, there is no guarantee that the Chinese COVID-19 demographic is the same as the Japanese one. Also, since the original study did not include asymptomatic patients or those with minor illnesses that did not require hospitalization, the number of infected patients estimated on that basis would inevitably be an underestimate. If you are more paranoid, it's not unreasonable to believe that "the Japanese and Chinese viruses are different because of the mutation" (although I don't think so).
9 This does not diminish the value of the paper itself. The model must always use existing parameters, and it is often impossible to prove the external validity of these parameters. If the underlying parameters are not reasonable, the predictions will not be correct. A model assumes a simplified world insofar as it is a model. A model without simplification, which is an adjectival contradiction.
To complain about these "assumptions" of the mathematical model is like complaining, for example, "You can't explain disease B," when a randomized controlled trial is conducted for disease A. This is a meaningless tirade against the honor of the industry.
A mathematical model that assumes a certain hypothesis should have internal academic validity, but it is the responsibility of the reader, as a resident of the real world, to appraise it in the real world.
Just as the RCT findings for disease A should not be used for disease B, it is natural to understand the limitations of the mathematical model and to be careful when applying it to the real world. For example, it would be wrong to read the paper and conclude that the total number of infected people in Tokyo is about 500 as of March 26.
11 People make mistakes. The models are also wrong. Being wrong is not a big deal. The problem is to notice your mistakes and make corrections. Already, a group at Imperial College London has admitted that its original estimate that the peak of the infection should be moderated was "wrong" and has revised its prediction that the ICU will soon fail if it does not fight the virus fairly aggressively.
16 March 2020
If they test positive, isolate them and find out who they have been in close contact with up to 2 days before they developed symptoms, and test those people too. [NOTE: WHO recommends testing contacts of confirmed cases only if they show symptoms of COVID-19]
Washing your hands will help to reduce your risk of infection. But it’s also an act of solidarity because it reduces the risk you will infect others in your community and around the world. Do it for yourself, do it for others.
This afternoon WHO and the International Chamber of Commerce issued a joint call to action to the global business community. The ICC will send regular advice to its network of more than 45 million businesses, to protect their workers, customers and local communities, and to support the production and distribution of essential supplies.
Like me, I’m sure you have been touched by the videos of people applauding health workers from their balconies, or the stories of people offering to do grocery shopping for older people in their community.
This amazing spirit of human solidarity must become even more infectious than the virus itself. Although we may have to be physically apart from each other for a while, we can come together in ways we never have before.
その論文は Science の Extraocular circadian phototransduction in human (1998) でしょうか？
これに対して、同じ雑誌の Absence of circadian phase resetting in response to bright light behind the knees (2002) では、目隠しをすれば膝の裏に日光を当てても有意な違いはなかったとあります。
In contrast to ocular light exposure, which significantly delayed melatonin phase and acutely suppressed melatonin secretion compared with controls, there was no significant difference for melatonin phase changes between subjects exposed to light behind the knee compared with controls and no acute melatonin suppression during the intervention (Fig. 1).
0 lux ocular and behind the knee (DK), 0 lux ocular and up to 13,000 lux behind the knee (BK), and 9,500 lux ocular and 0 lux behind the knee (BE).
Melatonin data for conditions DK and BK were superimposable during the intervention time (solid bar) for the intervention night and the previous night. BE significantly delayed melatonin phase and acutely suppressed melatonin secretion compared with DK controls (P = 0.003272) and (P = 0.000020), respectively. In contrast, there was no significant difference for melatonin phase changes between BK and DK and no acute melatonin suppression during the intervention in either of these conditions (P = 0.943071) and (P = 1.000000), respectively. Significant differences for phase shifts and melatonin suppression were also observed between BE and BK (P = 0.011359) and (P = 0.000016), respectively.
Balancing paid work, unpaid work and leisure
|Paid work or study||471||452||206||272||335||246||290||205||235||175||309||216||221||133||341||268||422||273||322||269||277||200||249||210||260||195|
|paid work (all jobs)||375||360||178||203||275||190||227||154||174||118||228||159||160||84||270||206||282||167||268||212||199||129||198||157||211||147|
|travel to and from work/study||50||54||21||33||26||18||33||24||26||20||49||30||27||16||33||25||74||42||21||19||36||23||21||20||29||18|
|time in school or classes||36||38||6||36||19||22||15||14||24||24||15||12||14||12||21||20||58||55||10||14||35||29||28||31||13||19|
|other paid work or study-related||0||..||0||..||0||0||5||3||1||0||1||1||3||3||..||..||..||..||..||..||4||5||2||2||..||..|
|care for household members||7||..||26||..||20||42||12||26||14||30||17||47||18||35||19||39||10||48||17||25||14||34||14||32||20||35|
|care for non household members||0||0||2||6||6||7||1||3||5||8||5||8||3||5||0||1||..||..||0||0||2||5||11||9|
|travel related to household activities||10||(see notes)||23||(see notes)||25||31||17||24||4||7||18||23||18||23||9||12||8||19||16||17||23||25||20||23||22||22|
|eating & drinking||104||91||117||96||63||61||93||97||134||131||80||78||129||125||65||65||107||103||70||74||81||77||80||81||118||120|
|"personal household and medical services + travel related to personal care"||61||74||82||96||49||70||50||59||99||113||50||65||67||68||43||61||83||88||3||0||49||63||45||58||46||57|
|participating / attending events||11||..||22||..||6||6||13||14||16||14||6||8||7||5||6||6||2||3||6||5||8||9||7||8||7||8|
|visiting or entertaining friends||12||15||12||18||40||46||58||63||52||58||42||53||73||58||53||54||43||48||27||32||47||69||50||60||74||87|
|TV or radio at home||127||103||140||103||157||132||126||111||125||104||145||122||117||90||118||100||125||120||124||89||140||116||136||101||132||115|
|Other leisure activities||74||160||56||137||78||62||121||103||109||87||110||87||126||95||96||83||113||74||138||131||155||152||127||99||101||90|
|religious / spiritual activities and civic obligations||1||..||2||..||10||11||2||3||2||3||4||5||6||8||3||5||7||15||..||..||2||2||1||1||7||5|
|other (no categories)||29||43||32||51||10||16||14||15||6||7||26||30||6||6||29||31||1||2||..||..||7||3||44||39||4||4|
日本 Note: Activity 4.4 TV or radio at home also includes reading newspaper or magazines.Activity 5.2 Other also includes all transport time (except commuting to work), which is 30 minutes for all the population (15-64), 28 minutes for men (15-64), and 33 minutes for women (15-64).
|Paid work or study||-265||-180||-89||-84||-60||-92||-88||-72||-149||-53||-77||-39||-65|
表の Paid work or study と Unpaid work の合計。
迷える子羊は stray の方をつかうのでそっちに合わせてもいいかも．
While the world is increasingly connected to NET and scarping the gap between those who have information and those who do not have it every day, I think that it is unhappy that violence due to concentration of wealth is increasingly increasing power.