How long are further shows

Asked if Ontario's immunization campaign could meaningfully slow transmission of the novel coronavirus, Yaffe said that it will take "many months" to reach herd immunity, which requires about 60 to 70 per cent of the population to be vaccinated. Both Brown and Yaffe said today that any plan to effectually slow the spread of COVID in the province will require social supports for essential workers who need to take time off work, so that "nobody has to choose between getting a test and putting food on the table.

Ford has thus far rejected calls for up to 10 paid sick days for workers in Ontario. When asked about the issue Tuesday, he deferred to federal assistance programs. All this comes as the province reported another 2, cases of COVID and 41 more deaths of people with the illness today.

The number of cases for any region may differ from what is reported by the local public health unit, because local units report figures at different times. Ontario's network of labs processed 44, test samples for the virus and reported a test positivity rate of 7. The province says another 11, doses of vaccines were administered yesterday. A total of , shots have now been given out in Ontario.

Meanwhile, the number of COVID patients in hospital increased by , up to 1, — a new pandemic high. Of those, are being treated in intensive care and require the use of a ventilator to breathe.

Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted. By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.

Join the conversation Create account. Already have an account? Researchers at the University of Oxford have today published in Preprints with The Lancet an analysis of further data from the ongoing trials of the vaccine. In this preprint, which is currently under review at The Lancet, they report on an analysis of additional data to include information from the trial up to the 7 th December , which includes a further cases of primary symptomatic COVID cases from reported in previously , They report that the effect of dosing interval on efficacy is pronounced, with vaccine efficacy rising from The exploratory analyses presented in this preprint suggest that it is the dosing interval and not the dosing level which has a great impact on the efficacy of the vaccine.

This is in line with previous research supporting greater efficacy with longer prime-boost intervals done with other vaccines such as influenza, Ebola and malaria. They also hope to report data regarding the new variants in the coming days, and expect the findings to be broadly similar to those already reported by fellow vaccine developers.

These were summed and divided by the total LSOA area to provide the greenspace density metric. This metric was allocated to each individual in the sample, based on LSOA of residence. Following previous literature, individuals were assigned to one of five quintiles of greenspace based on this definition ranging from least green to most green Rather than derive quintiles of greenspace from the current sample i.

This produced very similar results, so we focused on the more inclusive definition including both aspects. In further exploratory sensitivity analyses, we assigned individuals to five greenspace categories defined by equal ranges of greenspace coverage e. This also produced very similar results, so again we decided to go with the most common approach. In subsequent analyses the least green quintile acted as the reference category.

Each LSOA in England is assessed in terms of several parameters of deprivation, including unemployment and crime, levels of educational, income, health metrics, barriers to housing and services, and the living environment. Following previous studies 52 , we assigned individuals into deprivation quintiles based on the LSOA in which they lived. Two further control variables were particularly important.

Including this variable, at least in part, controls for reverse causality. If similar associations between nature exposure and health and well-being are found for both those with and without restricted functioning, this would support the notion that the associations are not merely due to healthier, more mobile people visiting nature more often.

Some people achieve this guideline though physical activity in natural settings 35 , thus, any association between time spent in nature and health may simply be due to the physical activity engaged in these settings. Nevertheless, by controlling for weekly activity levels, modelled relationships between time in nature and health have less bias from this source, and, therefore, improved estimates of association with nature exposure per se. Preliminary analysis found no effect of the season in which the data were collected so this was excluded from final analyses.

Model fit was provided by pseudo R 2 ; here the more conservative Cox and Snell estimate. The outcome binary variables were first regressed against the exposure duration categories to test direct relationships; adjusted models were then specified to include the individual and area level control variables.

Preliminary analysis found that the weighted descriptive proportions among this reduced estimation sample differed only negligibly from those among all available observations in the wider MENE sample, suggesting our complete case analysis approach did not distort the population representativeness of the estimation sample.

Although our main analyses used duration categories of weekly nature contact, an exploratory analysis used generalized additive models incorporating a penalized cubic regression spline of duration as a continuous variable adjusting for the same set of covariates.

Analyses and plotting was done using R version 3. To explore the generalisability of any pattern across different socio-demographic groups, we also a priori stratified the analyses on several area and individual covariates as defined above which have been found to be important in previous studies: a Urbanicity; b Neighbourhood greenspace; c Area deprivation; d Sex; e Age; f Restricted functioning; g Individual socio-economic status SES ; f Ethnicity; and g Physical activity.

Hartig, T. Living in cities, naturally. Science , — Kardan, O. Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Sci Rep 5 , Halonen, J. Obesity 22 , — Article Google Scholar. Astell-Burt, T. Is neighborhood green space associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes? Evidence from , Australians. Diabetes Care 37 , — Alcock, I. Land cover and air pollution are associated with asthma hospitalisations: A cross-sectional study.

Environ Int , 29—41 Mitchell, R. Neighborhood environments and socioeconomic inequalities in mental well-being. Am J Prev Med 49 , 80—84 Gascon, M. Residential green spaces and mortality: a systematic review. Environ Int 86 , 60—67 Wood, S.

Health Place 40 , — Dadvand, P. Green spaces and spectacles use in schoolchildren in Barcelona. Environ Res , — Surrounding greenness and pregnancy outcomes in four Spanish birth cohorts.

Environ Health Persp , Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. PNAS , — Maas, J. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Commun H 60 , — Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England.

J Epidemiol Commun H 61 , — Seresinhe, C. Quantifying the impact of scenic environments on health. White, M. Would you be happier living in a greener urban area?

A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol Sci 24 , — Ekkel, E. Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape Urban Plan , — Barton, J. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ Sci Technol 44 , — Shanahan, D. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose.

Sci Rep 6 , Keniger, L. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Nature and health. Annu Rev Publ Health 35 , — Nutsford, D. Residential exposure to visible blue space but not green space associated with lower psychological distress in a capital city. Health Place 39 , 70—78 Grahn, P. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For Urban Gree 2 , 1—18 Hillsdon, M. An assessment of the relevance of the home neighbourhood for understanding environmental influences on physical activity: how far from home do people roam?

Int J Behav Nutr Phy 12 , Sijtsma, F. A Netherlands Case Study. Cox, D. Doses of nearby nature simultaneously associated with multiple health benefits. Flowers, E. A cross-sectional study examining predictors of visit frequency to local green space and the impact this has on physical activity levels.

BMC Public Health 16 , The health benefits of urban nature: how much do we need? Bioscience 65 , — Frumkin, H. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ Health Persp , —1 Haskell, W. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation , —93 The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse.

A longitudinal study. J Epidemiol Commun H 68 , — Richardson, E. Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Soc Sci Med 71 , —