Category Archives: Human Behavior

Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson and other celebrities with the coronavirus: Here’s why they make pandemic feel ‘more real’ – Yahoo Entertainment

Americans already knew the coronavirus was a huge issue with global implications, but the revelation Wednesday that beloved actor Tom Hanks and his actress wife, Rita Wilson, have tested positive for the pandemic particularly affected people who have watched their movies for decades.

As journalist Ann Curry put it on Twitter, OK, now we all have someone we love diagnosed with #coronavirus.

Human behavior expert Patrick Wanis explains that the news about Hanks and any other celebrity can truly affect us, because we feel like were close to them. We have a one-sided relationship with him, keeping up with his family and his milestones, just like we do with our friends.

Tom Hanks is a dearly loved and respected actor and celebrity, and based on who he is on an off camera, we feel very close to him, and we can generally relate to him, Wanis tells Yahoo Entertainment. Therefore, the news that he has Coronavirus makes the virus much more real to each of us, and shatters our perception that celebrities are completely devoid of or immune to the same pains that we all experience. The fact that a celebrity can also contract the virus drives home the reality that no one is truly protected or exempt from a virus that is now labeled as pandemic.

Thankfully, Hanks and Wilsons adult children reassured fans Thursday that their parents are doing well, under the circumstances, and they are expected to make a full recovery.

Another actor, Matthew Broderick, has a close connection to a coronavirus patient: his sister, Janet Broderick, on Thursday shared with the church congregation she leads that shes been diagnosed with the virus.

In the sports world, the NBA suspended its season after two star players on the Utah Jazz, Rudy Gobert and Donovan Mitchell, tested positive.

For the latest news on the evolving coronavirus outbreak,follow along here. According to experts, people over 60 and those who are immunocompromised continue to be the most at risk. If you have questions, please reference theCDCandWHOsresource guides.

Read more from Yahoo Entertainment:

Want daily pop culture news delivered to your inbox?Sign up herefor Yahoo Entertainment & Lifestyle's newsletter.

More:
Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson and other celebrities with the coronavirus: Here's why they make pandemic feel 'more real' - Yahoo Entertainment

Education and hunting emerge as strategies against elk – Daily Astorian

A group tasked with finding solutions to problematic elk and human interactions near Gearhart and Warrenton has developed a list of recommendations that include both public education and the possibility of hunts.

The dozens of draft recommendations intended to address elk and human behavior, as well as related land use issues, are broad.

Data gaps, such as where elk roam in the Clatsop Plains area between Warrenton and Gearhart, what kind of habitat and forage they are looking for and why they tend to cross US Highway 101 in certain places, remain, said members of the Clatsop Plains Elk Collaborative at a meeting Tuesday.

However, a unified approach in rolling out the recommendations will be key.

If were not going to pursue one, we need to consider how that impacts all the other tools, said Vanessa Blackstone, a wildlife biologist with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.

There also needs to be flexibility, added Gail Henrikson, the community development director for Clatsop County. The county and the cities have their own individual characters and needs, she said.

The group, which includes city officials and state employees as well as private landowners and local law enforcement, gained the support of the governors office last year to address a growing urban elk population.

They plan to have a document, called a declaration of cooperation, ready in May or June that details specific actions they believe should be taken across jurisdictions to reduce elk and human conflicts. At that point, legislators like state Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, who was in attendance at Tuesdays meeting, will have a better idea of what sort of budgetary or policy changes might be necessary.

Some of these are going to take some money, theres just no two ways about it, Johnson said.

Among the recommendations, group members have suggested simpler items such as the development of fencing alternatives to give landowners options to keep elk out of yards, the creation of educational materials so new residents or visitors are aware of how to live safely near elk, additional tracking of elk to better understand their movements, changes to habitats or landscaping to attract elk to or deter them from an area and consistent no-feeding ordinances across jurisdictions.

Some of the suggestions will prove controversial.

An elk stands in a yard in Warrenton.

Many Gearhart residents who have attended public meetings about the elk have opposed any sort of lethal take. When Warrenton Mayor Henry Balensifer, who has helped lead the meetings with Seaside Mayor Jay Barber, asked for a quick poll to see if anyone was adamantly opposed to any culling of elk, Gearhart City Manager Chad Sweet raised his hand.

Our community wouldnt go for it, he said.

However, he agreed it was an important item to keep as part of the discussion, along with the possibility of controlled hunts and the removal of problem elk.

One piece of the issue, Sweet said later when going through recommendations for addressing human behavior around elk, is that humans have made Clatsop Plains more attractive to elk. We have done that over the years, especially in recent years. Humans are also compounding some of these issues by stopping in the middle of the road taking selfies, et cetera.

Meanwhile, other recommendations will likely be too expensive. Proximity sensors to alert drivers when elk are near Highway 101 could be useful, but a report from group members found the technology is very expensive and does not always work well.

They also looked at the possibility of a wildlife crossing, including a highway overpass.

Highway 101 presents a barrier for elk moving from the urban areas to less populated areas, a draft report from a subcommittee looking at elk management noted. A wildlife crossing will reduce vehicle collisions and may also enable elk herds to move west to east, rather than become a sedentary urban fixture.

The patchwork of varying terrain and land ownership, along with the sheer cost of this kind of infrastructure, make it unlikely. However, Henrikson said there could be ways to encourage other types of corridors within developing areas to give elk clear pathways, eliminating the chance that herds become stuck in an urban area.

Elk movement back and forth across Highway 101 remains a top concern.

A herd of elk rests in a field near Warrenton.

Collision data presented on Tuesday confirms what numerous anecdotes have suggested: the elk population is growing and herd interactions with human populations are going up.

The data, presented by Jae Pudewell of the Oregon Department of Transportation, showed an increase in elk collisions over the past 10 years along Highway 101 in the Clatsop Plains area. Collisions with other wildlife have increased in a way transportation officials would expect with more traffic and development along the highway, Pudewell said.

But when he looked at the elk data, the numbers are twice, almost three times, as high as the other data, he said. It looks like the problem is increasing much more rapidly for elk.

Still, more information is needed.

The states data likely undercounts elk and vehicle encounters, Pudewell said, and combining it with data collected by Oregon State Police or the national and state parks is problematic. Elk and vehicle interactions seem to be at their worst in the fall and winter but not every year. Besides, all seasons are trending higher with no clear reason why, Pudewell said.

Rangers at Fort Clatsop have put radio collars on several elk recently to better understand herd movements within Lewis and Clark National Historical Park.

But until they are able to collar multiple elk across the different herds that use the Clatsop Plains, enabling them to trace the animals going back and forth across the highway, Pudewell said, We wont really know why the elk cross the road other than to get to the other side.

See original here:
Education and hunting emerge as strategies against elk - Daily Astorian

Ezra Kleins Why Were Polarized and the Drawbacks of Explainer Journalism – The New Yorker

About halfway through his new book, Why Were Polarized, Ezra Klein inserts a helpful Interlude, a mini-chapter summarizing what has thus far been an ambitiously synthetic argument. Klein is the co-founder of Vox, the explanatory news site that launched in 2014, and his Interlude is quintessential Vox: a plainspoken, user-friendly distillation of an otherwise complex phenomenon. Once (so this summary goes), the countrys two major political parties generated a weak sense of group affiliation. Economic classes, social types, and racial groups were distributed somewhat evenly between them, and so any one groups influence on either party was softened. For fear of repelling a core constituency, the parties could not afford to become ideological monoliths.

Another way to put this is that the Democratic and Republican parties once performed, internally, the work of liberalism. They moderated passions, forced dissimilar people to coexist, and settled differences with compromise. They also, as Klein makes clear, formed a duopoly committed to moral complacency, especially on the issue of race. Then, in the nineteen-sixties, the Democrats passed major civil-rights legislation, and the American electorate began a great re-sorting. As black voters gravitated toward the Democrats, white voters fled toward the Republicans. Over time, the effects registered more broadly. Voting patterns are now highly correlated with religion, race, ethnicity, gender, and neighborhood, Klein notes. In the Trump era, each party has a world view that is internally coherent, and those world views are mutually exclusive and hostile to each other. Our social and partisan selves have all but merged.

Klein is a maestro at compactly and elegantly summarizing the work of others, and he patiently moves us through the scholarship of Alan Abramowitz on political polarization and Lilliana Mason on social polarization, along the way to concluding that our political identities have become political mega-identities. Then, in Chapter 3, he hits upon his big idea. When the two parties were less sorted, our politics worked helpfully against our deep tribal instincts. The human mind, Klein observes, is exquisitely tuned to group affiliation and group differenceso much so that, as soon as an affiliation has formed, the people who have affiliated with one another proceed to define themselves against an out-group. To make matters worse, Klein goes on, human groups compete less for resources than they do for social esteem, and esteem is zero-sum: more for you means less for me. We would rather win against the out-group and be worse off than be better off and lose.

The mechanism is evolutionary, Klein writes, because our brains know we need our groups to survive. The style of argumentation on display here will be familiar to most readers of contemporary nonfiction. Our distant ancestors were born into small, kinship-based bands; blind loyalty enhanced their chance for survival; they passed their loyalty genes down to us. By mixing experimental psychology with evolutionary biology, then aligning their findings with exciting new developments in cognitive neuroscience, political commentators can explain any social behavior by pointing to its origins in an adaptive advantage. Behind every parochial explanation lies Darwin, the Ultimate Explainer, whose influence has dominated the pop-intellectual mode since Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene, in 1976.

In a recent conversation with Klein, Ta-Nehisi Coates described Why Were Polarized as a cold, atheist book. He had in mind the broadly systemic, impersonal framing of its argument. In place of a call to worship or to arms, Klein offers us a theory of human cognition, by which our inborn tendency to group chauvinism compromises our ability to reason. What if our loyalties and prejudices are governed by instinct and merely rationalized as calculation? he asks. There is an amiable hope at the center of the atheism: that we might remove the goggles of human partiality, acknowledge our character as a species, and build a better liberal polity, one that takes into account our tribal disposition. Klein exhorts us to do so with an easygoing intellectual generosity, as if to imply by the grace of his own example that science might lead us back to civility, and civility might heal us.

But Darwinian truisms are true only to the extent that they describe what is more or less fixed about the human animal. It may be that we naturally form groups, as Klein writes, but the groups that we form are not facts of nature; they are contingencies of time and place. Kleins argument is addressed to a historical predicamentto the rise of polarization and, consequently, of Trump and Trumpism. But the authority that the book projects derives from ahistorical constructs, like brains and genes. Early on in Why Were Polarized, Klein seems to suggest, accurately, that the core alliance of the modern G.O.P.economic lites and poor whitesis the strategic creation of nameable individuals. But then those individuals recede from view. As elegant as the ensuing presentation is, I struggled to understand who the protagonist was. I think Klein did, too.

Klein begins Why Were Polarized by telling a story. Its protagonist is Strom Thurmond, the late senator from South Carolina who is commonly remembered as a leathery centenarian with an unyieldingly right-wing world view and a mixed-race daughter whose existence he never publicly acknowledged. But, when Thurmond was a younger man, he did something remarkable: he created the Republican Party. Republicans try to hide that fact by calling it the party of Lincoln, but this is a cynical sleight of hand. The contemporary G.O.P. is, in nearly every respect, the party of Thurmond.

The clarity with which Klein describes how Thurmond led the exodus of white Southerners out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party is outdone only by the rapidity with which Thurmond disappears from the books pages. Not coincidentally, this disappearance happens just as Klein goes from telling a story to offering an Explanation. The Story featured a villaina particular, nameable Southern politician fighting tooth and nail against racial justice. The Explanation features an undifferentiated first-person pluralwe, us, our. (According to Klein, the political psychologists argue that our politics, much like our interest in travel and spicy food, emerges from our psychological makeup.) Klein impresses us with summary upon summary of peer-reviewed studies and books with titles like Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences, all of which purport to show, via patterns in the data, that we are an inherently tribal, in-group-identifying species. But the effect is not clarifying.

The parties are dividing over fundamental identities that tend to generate intolerance and hostility, Klein writes. But, in fact, the parties are dividing because of hostility and intolerance, as encouraged by one party in particular. Perhaps Klein is oblivious to cynicism because he himself is so uncynical. But I think something else may be going on here. At one point in the book, Klein, who briefly worked on Howard Deans Presidential campaign, in 2004, cites an anti-Dean TV ad that featured a counterfeit man-on-the-street interview. In it, an older couple, played by actors, are asked what they think of Dean. Well, the fake husband begins, I think Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-readingand here the fake wife picks up the beatbody-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs. The ad is a showpiece of Orwellian cynicism. Yet Klein is so devoted to a morally neutral framework that the most he can say is, And, that, my friends, is pure, un-cut mega-identity politics. Maybe the appeal, in the ad, is to the selfish gene, but the spot was made by specific selfish rich peoplethe anti-tax zealots at Club for Growth. Lost in Kleins gloss is not just the staggering amount of money that has been spent turning people like me into reprehensible bogeymen, but why it has been spent.

Follow this link:
Ezra Kleins Why Were Polarized and the Drawbacks of Explainer Journalism - The New Yorker

What Opioid Use in Rats Can Tell Us About Addiction in Humans – Tufts Now

In 2018, more than forty-seven thousand Americans died from an opioid overdose, and ten million misused prescription opioids. The highly addictive drugs have destroyed lives and families, regardless of income level, race, age, or gender.

Fair Vassoler, PhD, a neuroscientist at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine has spent years researching opioid use in rats and the effects the drugs have on the rats offspring. We recently sat down with her to discuss what her research can tell us about opioid addiction in humans.

Tufts Now: The United States is in the midst of an opioid addiction crisis. Why study opioid addiction in rats? Whats the advantage of studying that species?

Fair Vassoler: Rats have the same reward system as humans. In the wild, these systems are designed to get an individual to repeat a behavior because they find it pleasurable, like eating and mating. Its really for survival of the species. Because rats and humans have the same reward system, rats can be great models for human addiction and human substance-use disorder. We have a huge amount of literature already about rats and their responses to drugs of abuse, and their behaviors are very similar to what we see in humans.

We can see escalating behaviors in the rats where they take more and more drugs if you give them more access. We see the same thing in humans. We can see relapse behaviors in rats the same way that we see them in humansif you take the drug away and then put the rats back in an environment that reminds them of the drug, theyll start searching for it just the way a human would.

With rats, we can look at what is happening in the brain at that time. We can record data from different parts of the brain and see what changes are happening and relate those changes back to humans.

Your research looked at how opioid addiction affected the rats offspring. What did you find?

When the parents were adolescents, they were given injections of opioids for ten days, and then we stopped giving them any more opioids. So it was very brief exposure. We let them grow up to adulthood, then mated them and looked at their offspring to determine if the offspring were more or less likely to take opioids or cocaine.

We found that if the rats fathers had been exposed to opioids, then the rats were more likely to take opioids and worked harder to obtain opioids. But they were less likely to take cocaine.

If the rats mothers had taken opioids, we found exactly the opposite. The rats had decreased likelihood to take opioids and increased likelihood to take cocaine.

We looked at both drugs because a lot of people think substance-use disorder is substance-use disorder. You may think that if someone is interested in taking drugs, then theyd be interested in taking all the drugs. But the rats definitely discriminated, and this can give us clues about which part of the brain is changed.

What is the practical application for this research right now? Can any of it translate to humans?

Its not that we can take the results and say that humans would be the same as rats. Humans are a very tricky species to study because they have so many different environmental experiences that are hard to control for. But I do think our research can suggest which areas are vulnerable, such as how a predisposition to addiction can get passed on from one generation to the next, and different places for intervention.

We have to think about how this widespread exposure to opioids is going to be impacting the next human generation. If we can find the right interventions, we can provide support for people who have had past issues. If we can help them enrich their environment for themselves and for their children, it can really be helpful. Environmental enrichment is another form of epigenetic modification that may be able to reverse the developmental trajectory and contribute to normal healthy neurodevelopment. Im definitely on the side of compassion, enrichment, and social support, and I think that those things are going to be really important going forward.

Where is your research headed next? What other questions are you hoping to answer?

The research Im doing now is trying to look at the development from embryo, to prenatal pups, to postnatal day-one pups, and throughout development to see if we can figure out how the offspring rats are developing differently. That could help us understand why they would respond to these two drugs, opioids and cocaine, so differently.

If we can figure out the specific biological mechanisms by which such behaviors are transmitted from one generation to the next, then we can work to intervene medically, and well understand more about how evolutionary biology operates. Thats what will make our research more applicable to humans in the future.

If effects like you describe did leave a child predisposed to addiction, could you reverse that somehow, maybe with nurturing or environment?

What this research can tell us is that our environment can impact our offspring. All the experiences youre collecting throughout your life are changing your epigenetics, or the way that your offspring are going to develop. For the rats, the only thing that the male donates to the offspring is his sperm. He doesnt do any fathering. So, theres something in the sperm thats changed as a result of the previous drug exposure. We think these are epigenetic modifications.

For a long time, people thought an individuals genetics were responsible for everything. But even if you have the same genetics, your environmental experiences can change how you react to things and how your offspring are going to react to things. I also think some tendencies are going to be reversible. So just the same way that your own opioid use might change the way your offspring take drugs, if you provide lots of environmental enrichment, for example you read to your child every day, then that could change or mitigate some of the effects of your past opioid use. Environmental enrichment is beneficial for everyone and can be particularly helpful in providing a strong foundation for neurodevelopment of children.

Some peoples brains are going to be more vulnerable to addiction, and its a combination of environmental exposures and genetics. Its not a failure of morality. Understanding that this is not a choice, that its a disease, is important.

Angela Nelson can be reached atangela.nelson@tufts.edu.

Read more from the original source:
What Opioid Use in Rats Can Tell Us About Addiction in Humans - Tufts Now

These REITs Could Suffer if the Coronavirus Outbreak Worsens – Motley Fool

The COVID-19 outbreak is rapidly changing human behavior. Social distancing is becoming the norm as more people stay home to help slow the spread of the global pandemic. That's having a notable impact on several sectors of the economy, with the travel industry among the hardest hit.

The outbreak is also affecting companies that own real estate tied to shopping, social interaction, and, of course, travel. Real estate investment trusts (REITs) focused on retail and hospitality, for example, are getting crushed due to concerns about how the outbreak will impact the operations of their customers. Those sell-offs could intensify if the outbreak worsens -- especially for real estate tied to social interaction like entertainment and gaming -- since it could have a lasting impact on human behavior and financial results.

One REIT that's already feeling the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak is EPR Properties (NYSE: EPR), a specialty REIT focused on owning entertainment, recreation, and education properties. Its shares have tumbled more than 40% from their peak earlier this year. That sell-off has pushed its yield above 10%.

Weighing on EPR Properties' stock are concerns that the outbreak will have a financial impact on the company. Those fears aren't unfounded. As more people practice social distancing, it's affecting the number of visitors passing through the turnstiles of movie theaters and recreational attractions. The lost ticket sales and other revenue won't directly impact EPR Properties' bottom line since it doesn't operate these properties but collects rent from those that do.

However, the lost revenue from fewer visitors will affect its tenants. If conditions worsen and people continue distancing themselves from entertainment venues, then some tenants might not be able to pay their rent. That would cut into EPR Properties' income stream. If that starts happening, shares of this entertainment-focused REIT could fall even further.

Casino stocks have also tumbled due to the outbreak as people distance themselves from these venues. That's putting pressure on the REITs that own these properties. Gaming and Leisure Properties (NYSE: GLPI), MGM Growth Properties (NYSE: MGP), and VICI Properties (NYSE: VICI) are all down more than 20% from their highs earlier in the year, pushing their dividend yields upward.

On the one hand, fewer visitors to the casinos and hotels owned by these companies won't directly impact their bottom line since they sign triple net leases with the operators of those properties.

However, if travel restrictions and social distancing continue keeping visitors away, it could begin to affect their tenants' ability to pay rent. That would put even more pressure on the stock prices of these REITs since it would impact their earnings and potentially their ability to pay dividends.

Anytime there is a major sell-off in the market, it can be tempting to go bargain hunting immediately. With shares of these REITs tumbling, they might seem like enticing buys since their dividend yields have risen sharply as their stock prices have fallen.

However, shares of these REITs could continue declining since there's always the risk that the outbreak could have a direct and lasting impact on their financial situations. Because of that, investors might want to wait things out before they go bargain hunting for outbreak-impacted REITs. At worst, you'll only miss out on buying at the bottom instead of right before another sickening downdraft.

More:
These REITs Could Suffer if the Coronavirus Outbreak Worsens - Motley Fool

When safety measures lead to riskier behavior by more people – The Conversation US

Coronavirus fears triggered a recent surge in sales of protective masks, as well as disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer. Now theres a shortage and concern that even health care providers who must wear face masks wont be able to get the gear they need.

Setting aside the fact that public health experts say healthy people get no benefit from wearing masks, theres another major issue to consider: Wearing a face mask and constantly sanitizing hands could lead to worrisome changes in behavior as people recalibrate their sense of risk.

From driving a car to investing in the stock market, risk is a quintessential part of human experience. With coronavirus, being in public spaces taking a subway or going to a doctor becomes a risky activity due to the possibility of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Safety measures make risky activities less risky: seat belts for car occupants, bailouts for financial institutions. Masks and disinfectants might feel like they do the same for anyone afraid of coronavirus.

But as behavioral economists, we are well aware that people and their behavior hamper the effectiveness of even the best safety measures.

Forty-five years ago, economist Sam Peltzman studied the impact of the 1966 automobile safety regulations for cars sold in the U.S. His finding forever changed researchers understanding of how safety measures work: Regulations had no impact on the overall fatality rate.

Given that driving became safer, this result seems impossible. But Peltzman argued that drivers, feeling safer, started to behave more recklessly, paying less attention to road conditions or pressing pedal to the metal. While fewer drivers and passengers died, the number of accidents increased, as did fatalities among pedestrians.

Researchers have documented a similar behavioral mechanism at work in other areas. Skiers, hockey players and NASCAR racers take more risks when safety measures are implemented. Government guarantees have the same impact on financial institutions. Introduction of naloxone, a medication used to prevent death in the case of opioid overdose, seemingly led to an increase in opioid abuse and opioid-related crime. Access to the morning-after pill resulted in more risky sexual behaviors and increased in birth rates.

In the case of coronavirus, a mask (a perceived safety measure) makes presence in a public area (risky activity) seem less risky. Its likely people will ease off on other forms of prevention, such as carefully washing hands or avoiding contact with sick people. In the worst case, the risk of infection actually increases.

The story is incomplete, though, without realizing that there are people who sit out risky activities. Not everyone attempts to drive in a NASCAR race or invest in the stock market, because not everyone has the talent and capabilities.

For people with low capabilities, a risky activity might be so dangerous that they prefer not to participate. They trade bigger potential payoffs for greater safety. But once a safety measure is introduced, some of them change their minds.

We investigated this phenomenon using a large data set provided by iRacing, an online racing simulator that generates behavioral data, including measures of players driving capabilities. We found that less capable drivers tend to choose safer cars.

Researchers report similar results in the financial literature where capabilities are understood as an investors financial literacy. Low financial literacy is associated with lower probability of investing in risky assets.

But a safety measure acts as an encouragement to participate. When accompanied by a professional driver, a NASCAR race seems less dangerous. With a ban on complex financial instruments, investing becomes safer.

Crucially, as these weaker individuals join the fray, the average capabilities across the field decrease. Their entrance potentially makes a risky activity riskier for everyone involved.

In the case of coronavirus, you can think of some people apparently older folks and those with underlying illness as having lower capabilities at surviving the infection. A protective mask or frequent use of hand sanitizer might provide incentive for them to leave their homes and interact in public places.

We think that public health officials should be concerned about a resulting increase in infections and even deaths, thanks to overconfidence in protective measures.

A final warning message: When encountering someone wearing a mask, be cautious. Perceived safety offered by the mask might alter their behavior in a way that puts them and you more at risk of infection.

[Like what youve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversations daily newsletter.]

Read more:
When safety measures lead to riskier behavior by more people - The Conversation US

Climate change a feature of Vermont’s 10-year Big Game Plan – Rutland Herald

Climate change, ticks, expanding hunting opportunities and living with bears are the new themes of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Departments proposed 10-year Big Game Plan.

We werent talking as much about climate change 10 years ago, said Mark Scott, director of wildlife at the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, in an interview last Thursday.

Every 10 years, approximately, the department updates its Big Game Plan, which looks at bears, deer, moose and turkey.

Fish & Wildlife Commissioner Louis Porter said in an interview last Thursday these are game animals whose populations are thought to need more in-depth monitoring and regulation by the state. It is a planning document that guides policy and decision-making, it is not regulatory, Porter said. He likened it to a municipal town plan and said nothing in it would stop the state from reacting to a crisis such as an infectious disease.

The draft plan can be viewed online at bit.ly/0305BigPlan. There will be a public meeting about it from 6:30-8:30 p.m. March 18 at White River Valley School, 273 Pleasant St., Bethel. That meeting isnt to be confused with a number of sessions the state will hold on the moose and deer seasons, said Scott, though department officials will be telling people about the Big Game Plan at those as well.

Porter said there is only one public meeting on the Big Game Plan because public participation has been low. Most comments come online to bit.ly/0326PublicMeeting, or via ground mail (to Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, One National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620).

Scott said the current draft is the result of two years of work involving meetings with interested groups.

According to the plans section on climate change, storms are becoming more intense and frequent, winters milder and shorter. It has also been connected to the rise in tick-borne diseases, and the spread of invasive species. While deer, bears and turkeys are highly adaptable to this, moose are having a rougher time.

Unfortunately, moose are struggling, as less predictable and wider extremes in weather patterns will likely cause more dramatic shifts in natural food abundance, reads the plan. The department is actively incorporating climate change mitigation strategies into fish, wildlife and habitat management at multiple scales guided by Vermont Conservation Design. This habitat conservation tool prioritizes key habitat blocks and movement corridors that maximize the ecological function of landscapes, habitats, and their species.

Hunters on the declineAccording to a Big Game Survey conducted by the department, 86% of Vermonters support regulated big-game hunting, but sustaining that level of public support might be difficult in coming years with current and expected changes to the states demographics. According to the department, people within the state, and almost all people moving in from out-of-state, are heading into the urban and suburban areas of Chittenden County.

In 2018, 35% of the states population is estimated to reside in the U.S. Census Bureau-defined Burlington metropolitan area, up from 30% in 1990 and 33% in 2000, and that percentage is expected to continue to steadily increase in the next decade, reads the plan. If national trends hold, suburbanization will likely lead to less knowledge about wildlife, lower exposure to hunters, hunting and hunting as a tool for managing wildlife populations, more emotional and familial feelings towards individual animals, and less hunting and fishing participation. These factors have generally been associated with less understanding and support for regulated hunting.

Porter said the loss of hunters is an issue for several reasons, among them being hunters are a key tool in managing big-game animal populations. The Big Game plan talks about possibly having to raise bag limits to accommodate fewer hunters, even though game meat can be promoted as a local food source.

Scott said that according to surveys, Vermonters like seeing wildlife around where they live. To reduce bear-human conflicts, he said, the Big Game Plan calls for efforts being directed to people in the form of further outreach and education.

Black bear numbers are limited less by the environments carrying capacity and more so by human tolerance of them, according to the plan. Bears can cause a great deal of property damage, can injure humans, and, unlike deer or turkeys, the public is often poorly prepared to interact with them, reads the plan.

It goes on to say there have been a record number of bear-human interactions in recent years, more so than the department can directly address in an effective manner. Outreach efforts have made people more aware of what they should do, but, increased knowledge, however, has yet to result in a measurable decrease in complaints, reads the plan.

The department expects bear-human conflicts will remain high.

Additionally, a mandated composting law (Act 148) which took effect in 2020 could, at least temporarily, increase problems statewide without proactive measures aimed at bear-human conflict reduction, reads the plan.

The law bans food scraps from landfills. It doesnt require anyone to compost their food scraps, but the state has been encouraging people to do so. The Big Game Plan foresees the need to educate people on how to compost without attracting bears. Many Vermonters already do compost, but it is expected more people will take it up.

Brenna Galdenzi, president of Protect Our Wildlife, a Vermont-based advocacy group, said the root of the bear-human conflict is human behavior, not bear behavior, and the the group doesnt believe more hunting of bears is the answer. She said if the Big Game Plan focuses on educating people and adjusting their behaviors, that is good.

keith.whitcomb @rutlandherald.com

Originally posted here:
Climate change a feature of Vermont's 10-year Big Game Plan - Rutland Herald

Undisciplined: The Sports Media Analyst And The Research Ecologist – Utah Public Radio

This week on Undisciplined, were talking about the impact of sports on human behavior and impact of chaos on plants, with guests whose fields couldnt be more different. Or, at least, thats what it looks like at first.

Joining us this week from Provo, Utah, where he is an associate professor of journalism at Brigham Young University, is Kris Boyle. His recent study, in the Journal of Sports Media, examined the types of sports fans who engage in online sports discussion forums and proposes three distinct groups of people who account for the majority of participation.

And also with us is Leslie Forero. Her research as a PhD student at Utah State University has honed in on diversity-productivity relationships in ecology, and her recent study on the really important differences between greenhouse and field-measured plant-soil feedbacks was recently published in Frontiers in Environmental Science.

More:
Undisciplined: The Sports Media Analyst And The Research Ecologist - Utah Public Radio

Another Article About Coronavirus? – ETF Trends

By Toroso Investments

Our ETF Think Tank members have been peppered by emails about the virus and the volatile market impact. We will provide some of our insight but first, we want to welcome Michael Gayed and hisRotation strategy to Toroso, and as a contributor to the ETF Think Tank. His strategy employs an award-winning approach that utilizes ETFs to navigate the markets with risk-on/risk-off signals. The strategy signals went to risk-off on January 27th. To learn more please see thepress releaseor register for ourconference callbeing held March 12th.

Now on to the volatility, unfortunately, it is probably not over. The human health impact of the coronavirus is evolving, frightening and to some degree unknown. None of our contributors are medical professionals, so we will avoid commenting further on this human impact other than to say stay safe and wash your hands. The market impact is a little clearer. This statement from the United Nations says it all:

Ultimately, the economic impact of this virus depends on the measures that countries apply to contain the virus. So, planned closures, restriction to movement of people, which were all necessary; but there is an economic effect when you takethose measures.

Essentially, the economic impact is a direct result of solving the health concern. Governments, corporations and the general public must slow physical interaction, commerce and business in order to slow the spread of the virus. This necessary response must ultimately disrupt the economy.

For months we have expressed concerns over the frothy valuations of US equities from traditional metrics like margin expansion and non-traditional metrics likeNY Real-estatebacklogs. We have been referring to this condition in US market valuations as Dry Tinder and it appears the coronavirus is a lit match. The ETF Think Tank hosted a webinar about this subject in early February, a replay of which is available to members that login to the events section.

So, whats next? We have had a violent market downturn, which will likely be followed by directionless volatility while the supply chain, consumer and general health concerns are resolved. The emergence of clarity on the public health condition will reduce panic and economic impact. Then, volatility will subside and, theoretically, the capital markets will return to some version of efficiency and growth but from valuations that are much more reasonable. This crisis is not the end of normal markets but quite possibly the catalyst that brings sobriety, reality and a return to thoughtful valuation. When? If we knew exactly when and how, we would be writing from a tropical paradise instead of an office on a Saturday. That said we did want to share a detailed article fromHarvard Business Review which outlines scenarios for recovery:

We have heard anecdotal examples of the positive changes in human behavior in response to the virus-crisis. Our team likes to say there is new bull market in hygiene. Also, epidemics spark innovation in biotech and commerce; the SARS outbreak is often sighted as a catalyst for ecommerce in China. Finally,the article belowshows the effect containment has had on pollution. Clearly, we understand the serious threat the coronavirus poses to health and the economy, but our ETF Think Tank contributors are here to discuss alternative ways of evaluating the markets.

Returns as of March 6, 2020.Inception Date: April 4, 2017.

Index performance is for informational purposes only and does not represent any ETF. Indexes are unmanaged and one cannot invest directly in an index.Past performance is NOT indicative of future results, which can vary.

Click herefor information on the Index following the ETF industry

Original post:
Another Article About Coronavirus? - ETF Trends

Coronavirus and face touching: What you should know – IndyStar

State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick says that the state's superintendents are doing everything possible to keep kids safe from coronavirus. Indianapolis Star

With the number of confirmed new coronavirus cases growing asas hand sanitizer reserves are depleting, Hoosiers looking to avoid the illness are doing their best to follow the advice of medical experts.

Things like properly washing your hands and keeping your distance from people who are coughing are relatively easy to follow.

But others, like not touching your face, are proving to be much more difficult.

Hand sanitizer sits at an information booth during the 2020 Work Truck Show at the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis on Thursday, March 5, 2020. (Photo: Jenna Watson/IndyStar)

"It's really, really hard. It's even hard for me. I feel likeI'm constantly fiddling with my face in different ways,"said Dr. Christopher Doehring, vice president of medical affairs for Franciscan Health. "Unfortunately, it's a best practice recommendation that flies in the face of being a human and normal human behavior."

But how literal is the advice? Are there places on your face that you can touch without putting yourself at risk? Is a pick of the nose more dangerous than a pick of the ear?

IndyStar asked Doehring to break down the no-face-touchingedict and why it's important.

Doehring said the face contains multiple pathways for infections to easily enter your body, and hands can easily become contaminated without you knowing it.

That's why the advice to keep hands clean and sanitized sits atop every health agency'slist of tips.Doehring added that this advice helps you avoid all forms of illness, not just COVID-19.

"The problem is were constantly touching surfaces and constantly exposing our hands to potential contamination. That's whywe're advising against shaking hands andwere advising to wash hands frequently and to use the right kind of sanitizer,"Doehring said. "Inevitably those things fail and you end up withcontamination.But as long as it's just on your hands you're OKuntil you touch your face, pick your nose, whatever.Then all bets are off."

It should go without saying, but that advice also goes for touching other people's faces. Please don't pick someone else's nose.

The biggest thing isto keep your fingers away from your nose, eyes and mouth. ButDoehring warns that digging in ears and fiddling with facial hair should also be avoided.

"It's kind of like ifI'm standing next to you in the baggage claim area versus I'm sittingnext to you on the plane for the last threehours," he said."I'm not touching you necessarily in either circumstance, but the fact that Isat next to you for an extended period of time isgoing to be much higher risk than if I'm just standing next to you."

So to recap, using hands to wipe the sweatfromyour eyes during an intense workout that involves you touching exercise equipment? Risky.

Facepalming like Captain Picard after a colleaguecracks a particularly bad joke at work? Risky.

Using a finger to dig out a bit of ear wax? Maybe not as riskyas putting thatfinger in your mouth, but still risky nonetheless.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

So is there a way to safely scratch my nose? Or do I have to endure this itch until the end of time?

Doehring knows there are times when touching your face is going to happen. Tending to an itch. Adjusting eyeglasses. Putting in contact lenses.

He advises coming up with ways to do those things without introducing dirty digits to your face.

Instead of using hands to wipe sweat from your brow, use your forearm, a clean towel or an article of clothing that has not come in contact with any surfaces.

Use a handkerchief to adjust eyewear, and when putting in your contacts, don't slack on the recommended hand washing and dryingregimen.

Now is probably a good time to kick those habits.

Doehringsaid COVID-19 and other viruses can live on inanimate objects long enough to put you at risk. That means sanitizing items that come in regular contact with your face like cellphones and earbuds.

During the early stages of the outbreak, posts suggesting that facial hair could put you at greater risk of coronavirus were being shared across social media platforms.

The good news is unless you're a medical professional, that soul patch and handlebar mustache combo you've been growing out can probably stay put. Facial hair can compromise the fit of respirators, Doehring said.

"As far as the general public is concerned, I don't think there's a whole lot of science behind removing facial hair to prevent coronavirus," Doehring said.

Face masks are best used by people who are already sick to prevent further spread, not as primary prevention, Doehring said.

"And truthfully we all need to be good stewards of what are going to be limited resources," Doehring said. "I know we've experienced peoplekind of pilfering stockpiles of face masks and things of that nature, and we don't have enough access capacity to be able to tolerate that.

"If you need a mask, you'll get one."

Call IndyStar reporter Justin L. Mack at 317-444-6138. Follow him on Twitter: @justinlmack.

Read or Share this story: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/03/11/stop-touching-your-face-everything-you-wanted-know/5009996002/

Go here to see the original:
Coronavirus and face touching: What you should know - IndyStar