Duelundmacias2495

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves vaccines when their benefits outweigh the risks for their intended use. U73122 concentration In this article we review the standard FDA approach to vaccine evaluation, which underpins its current approaches to assessment of vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The FDA has established pathways to accelerate vaccine availability before approval, such as Emergency Use Authorization, and to channel resources to high-priority products and allow more flexibility in the evidence required for approval, including accelerated approval based on surrogate markers of effectiveness. Among the thirty-five new vaccines approved in the US from 2006 through October 2020, about two-thirds of their pivotal trials used the surrogate outcome of immune system response, and only one-third evaluated actual disease incidence. Postapproval safety surveillance of new vaccines, and particularly vaccines receiving expedited approval, is crucial. This has generally been accomplished through such mechanisms as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink, and the CDC Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project. Adverse events detected in this way may lead to changes in a vaccine's recommended use or withdrawal from the market. Regulatory oversight of new vaccines must balance speed with rigor to effectively address the pandemic.Prices send signals about consumer preferences and thus stimulate producers to make more of what people want. Pricing in a pandemic is complicated and fraught. The policy puzzle involves balancing lower prices to ensure access to essential medications, vaccines, and tests against the need for adequate revenue streams to provide manufacturers with incentives to make the substantial, risky investments needed to develop products in the first place. We review alternative pricing strategies (cost recovery models, monetary prizes, and advance market commitments) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics. Hybrid pricing strategies are undoubtedly needed in a pandemic, but even in a public health crisis, value-based pricing is important. Cost-effectiveness analyses can inform pricing. Ideally, analyses would be conducted from both a health system and a societal perspective. Incorporating the added value of social benefits into cost-effectiveness analyses does not mean that manufacturers should capture the entire societal benefit of a diagnostic, vaccine, or therapy. Such analyses can provide important information and help policy makers consider the full costs and benefits of products and the wide-ranging ramifications of their actions.Empirical evidence has shown that peer pressure can impact human risk-taking behavior. With robots becoming ever more present in a range of human settings, it is crucial to examine whether robots can have a similar impact. Using the balloon analogue risk task (BART), participants' risk-taking behavior was measured when alone, in the presence of a silent robot, or in the presence of a robot that actively encouraged risk-taking behavior. In the BART, shown to be a proxy for real risk-taking behavior, participants must weigh risk against potential payout. Our results reveal that participants who were encouraged by the robot did take more risks, while the mere presence of the robot in the robot control condition did not entice participants to show more risk-taking behavior. Our results point to both possible benefits and perils that robots might pose to human decision-making. Although increasing risk-taking behavior in some cases has obvious advantages, it could also have detrimental consequences that are only now starting to emerge.Eye blinks strongly attenuate visual input, yet we perceive the world as continuous. How this visual continuity is achieved remains a fundamental and unsolved problem. A decrease in luminance sensitivity has been proposed as a mechanism but is insufficient to mask the even larger decrease in luminance because of blinks. Here we put forward a different hypothesis visual continuity can be achieved through shortening of perceived durations of the sensory consequences of blinks. Here we probed the perceived durations of the blackouts caused by blinks and visual stimuli interrupted by blinks. We found that the perceived durations of blackouts because of blinks are about half as long as artificial blackouts immediately preceding or following the blink. Stimuli interrupted by blinks were perceived as briefer than uninterrupted stimuli, by about the same duration as the interruption-but so were stimuli interrupted by optically simulated blinks. There was a difference between real and simulated blinks, however The decrease in perceived duration depended on the duration of the interruption for simulated, but not for real, blinks. These profound modifications in time perception during blinks show a way in which temporal processing contributes to the solution of an essential perceptual problem. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).In 1980, George Mandler published an article in Psychological Review that has become very influential in the study of memory. As evidence, according to Google Scholar (as of August 17, 2020), this article has been cited 3,391 times. Writing about recognition memory, Mandler made a fundamental distinction between recognition involving familiarity and recognition involving recollection. Mandler introduced what has since become the label for his illustration, saying that "Specific identification of an event is not possible on the basis of its familiarity alone. The butcher-in-the-bus is one intuitive demonstration of such an assertion." The purpose of this note is, ironically, to provide context, in this case historical context. Twenty-seven years before Mandler's (1980) article, Charles Osgood (1953) provided a discussion of retention and interference theory in his book, Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology. Is it possible that Mandler inadvertently borrowed Osgood's illustration, a case of cryptomnesia? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).