<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>lainey47287のブログ</title>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/</link>
<atom:link href="https://rssblog.ameba.jp/lainey47287/rss20.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" />
<description>ブログの説明を入力します。</description>
<language>ja</language>
<item>
<title>しあわせ</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p>幸(しあわ)せになるには、失敗(しっぱい)を繰(く)り返さなければいけません。</p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12670665106.html</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:16:14 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>”■ わざと…かな？”</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p><br><iframe class="reblogCard" data-ameba-id="suzume-0513" data-entry-id="12651196595" frameborder="0" height="234px" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-top-navigation" scrolling="no" src="https://ameblo.jp/s/embed/reblog-card/suzume-0513/entry-12651196595.html?reblogAmebaId=lainey47287" width="100%"></iframe></p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12651890925.html</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:31:50 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>ロシアの女性患者に感染5カ月後に18種の変種が出現-</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p>ロシアの科学者はこのほど、呉飛氏と5カ月間闘病した47歳の女性リンパ腫患者の体内に18種類もの変種の呉飛ウイルスが含まれていることを明らかにした。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>女性は昨年4月に呉飛と診断された後、9月9日に陽性反応が出るまで約5カ月間、呉飛と格闘していた。 4つの大学と1つの病院で患者の遺伝子を分析した結果、女性には、英国で以前に報告された呉飛ウイルスの変種だけでなく、デンマークのミンク2匹からの変種も含まれていることがわかった。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>患者は第IV期リンパ腫患者であり、しかも肺を収縮した後に続々と化学療法を受けるため、専門家は、これは肺ウイルスが免疫力の低い宿主体内で変異が発生しやすいことを証明すると考えている。&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12651295530.html</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:42:51 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>New era. N</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p>New era. New single. It’s begins. #HOLY this Friday ft. @chancetherapper&nbsp; https://t.co/4oWyOoJmzr&nbsp; https://t.co/5YIvtDHURK</p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12651095506.html</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:03:48 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>台積電の提携パートナーM31董佐林小平さん死去、生きて62歳新聞網</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p>司之材(IP)工場M31は本日、林小平会長が62歳で死去したと発表した。 M31によれば、会社は代理店の運営に従い、すべての業務はキャリアマネージャーが担当しており、会社の経営に影響はないという。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>M31は本日、林小平会長が62歳で死去したと発表した。 M31は、会社は代理店に従った運営をしており、すべての業務はキャリアマネージャーが担当しており、会社の経営に影響はないと強調している。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>林小平は台湾大学電器科を卒業後、米国に留学し、カリフォルニア大学電器科の修士号を取得した。 聯華電子、宜華コンピュータ公司に勤務し、約15年間聯電傘下の致遠科技総経理を務めた。 致遠科技を離れた後、林小平は仕事仲間とともにM31を設立した。 林小平は、十大優秀技術者賞、経済省産業科学技術振興個人功労賞など数々の賞を受賞している。 M31は2011年に設立され、シリコンスマート商品のデベロッパーです。 主な製品には、USB、MIPI、PCIe、SATAなどの高速インターフェースシリコンスマート商品設計、部品ライブラリ設計、メモリ設計などの基本シリコンスマート商品が含まれています。 （中央社）&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12650209548.html</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2021 16:01:45 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>”末っ子の年末年始。みんなと同じが良いって、あんなに言ってたのに…！《コノビー》”</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p><br><iframe class="reblogCard" data-ameba-id="egaogakawaii88" data-entry-id="12649617604" frameborder="0" height="234px" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-top-navigation" scrolling="no" src="https://ameblo.jp/s/embed/reblog-card/egaogakawaii88/entry-12649617604.html?reblogAmebaId=lainey47287" width="100%"></iframe></p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12649916585.html</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:58:14 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>新年寒波よりも強い！ 賈新星:木曜日北方3℃山間部で降雪確率大--生活</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p>（即時ニュース/総合記事）年明け寒波が去ったばかりですが、木曜日（7日）にはまた一波の寒波が南下してきそうです。 気象リスク会社の賈新興ディレクターは、今回の寒波の強さはますます強くなっており、強度は新年の寒波よりも強くなるとの見方を示した。 台北の低温は前波の7.6℃を下回る可能性があり、水蒸気も前波より多い。 北方2000メートルの山体で雪が降る確率が高い。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>天気ベンチャーの取締役であるジャ・シン氏は今日フェイスブックで、木曜日にさらに寒波が南下し、予報はますます強くなっていると述べた。 年明け寒波よりも強度が強いのではないかとの見方を示した。 この寒波は木曜日には南下を始める見込みで、木曜日の朝早くからその威力が感じられます。 気温は下がります。 最低気温は木曜日の深夜から金曜日（8日）明け方になると予想されています。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>賈氏によると、台北市気象台の低温は元旦の波の時の7.6℃を下回る可能性があり、予想は6~7℃。北部と沿海部の広々とした地域の最低気温は3℃、中南部の広々とした地域でも10℃以下になると予想されている。 この波は、新年の寒波よりも湿気が多い。 桃園、新竹、宜蘭、花蓮は2,000メートル以上の雪が降る確率が高い。 木曜日の深夜から金曜日にかけて雪が降る見込みです。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>ジャ氏は、「心血管系疾患のある高齢者や子供は、湯沸かし器を使用する際には、防寒対策をしっかりと行い、換気に注意する必要がある」と指摘した。 また、この寒波のあと、来週月曜日にも寒気が南下する可能性があり、強さは再観察が必要です。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>吸わず、奪わず、今はアプリでニュースを見て、毎日勝ち点を保証している。 私は自分がイベントを見るようにアプリをダウンロードします。&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12649440308.html</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2021 19:54:39 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>”元旦からハンターカブ弄りｗ 走り初めと初詣(^^ゞ”</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p><br><iframe class="reblogCard" data-ameba-id="guttsanotaiko" data-entry-id="12647599495" frameborder="0" height="234px" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-top-navigation" scrolling="no" src="https://ameblo.jp/s/embed/reblog-card/guttsanotaiko/entry-12647599495.html?reblogAmebaId=lainey47287" width="100%"></iframe></p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12647877457.html</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2021 04:40:41 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>2020年先週末、寒気が新疆に「お別れ」</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p>天山网訊みんな周末おめでとう！ 12月26日，我々は2020年最後の週末を迎えた。 すべての過去は序章である。 冷気も新疆に「見送り」…12月26日から28日まで、新疆北部と東部は冷え込むため、防寒と保温に注意が必要だ。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>12月26日、イリカザフ自治州、ボルタラモンゴル自治州東部、タダ地区南部、クラーマイ市、石河子市、チャンギ回族自治州、バ音郭コングモンゴル自治州北部などの一部地域は曇って霧または曇って雪がある。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>12月26日、ウルムチは太陽が明るく、時に霧がある。 最高気温-9℃、最低気温-17℃、風力レベル3。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>12月26日、曇りや曇り雪の影響を受けた区間は、G30、G312線ではホルゴス~イネン、精河~ウルムチ、G216線ではフカン~ウルムチ、G7線ではウルムチ~フカン、G217線ではクラマイ~クィーントゥン、G3014線ではクラマイ~クィーントゥン、G3015線ではクラマイ~クィーントゥン、G314線ではクルラー~輪台であった。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>「冬至麺を食べれば、一日に一列伸びる」と言われています。&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>気がついたか、冬至を過ぎると、日はどんどん長くなっていきます。 冬至からいくつか寒い日に入りました。 「九九」は俗に「嬌九」と呼ばれる。 以後、九日ごとに「九」という。 9つの「く」を経て、ちょうど81日で「く」となりました。&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12647877346.html</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2021 04:37:43 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>特集記事-英国のCovid-19ワクチンがいかに極からスタートまで不調になったか</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ <p>On June 5, researchers at the University of Oxford quietly made a change to a late-stage clinical trial of their COVID-19 vaccineOn June 5, researchers at the University of Oxford quietly made a change to a late-stage clinical trial of their COVID-19 vaccine. In an amendment noted in a document marked CONFIDENTIAL, they said they were adding a new group of participants.The adjustment might seem minor in a large-scale study. But it masked a mistake that would have potentially far-reaching consequences: Many of the United Kingdom trial subjects had inadvertently been given only about a half dose of the vaccine.The new volunteers would now receive the correct dose. The trial continued.Much was riding on the Oxford vaccine, a British-led endeavour also involving UK drugs firm AstraZeneca. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government was desperate for a success story after its early mishandling of the pandemic contributed to one of the world’s highest death tolls from COVID-19 - around 65,000 by mid-December. The government has secured 100 million doses.On Nov. 23, Oxford and AstraZeneca delivered positive news. They announced that the regimen of a half dose followed by a full dose booster appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19. Two full doses scored 62%. Oxford researchers have said they aren’t certain why the half-dose regimen was much more effective.Johnson called the vaccine team and tweeted his thanks “for their brilliant work.” He went on, “These results are incredibly encouraging and a major step forward in our fight against COVID-19.”Oxford and AstraZeneca are now hoping for quick authorization by Britain’s regulator. But questions about the trial and the results won’t go away.Some experts say the dosing discrepancy raises doubts about the robustness of the study’s findings. And they worry about another acknowledged peculiarity of the study: The half-dose regimen wasn’t tested on anyone over 55 - the group considered at high risk from COVID-19. In contrast, a vaccine produced by Pfizer/BioNTech was tested on thousands of people over 65, with an efficacy of 94%.John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, said there needed to be a better understanding of how the Oxford trial unfolded. “When you get corporate and academic scientists saying different things, it doesn’t give you the impression of confidence in what they’re doing,” he told Reuters. “Was the dosing thing a mistake or not?”Now a Reuters review of hundreds of pages of clinical trial records, as well as interviews with scientists and industry figures, provides the most detailed account to date of what went wrong with the dosing in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine study. The review found that Oxford researchers were responsible for what their own clinical trial documents called “a potency miscalculation.”For Oxford and AstraZeneca, the stakes could not be higher. They hope to produce up to three billion doses of the low-cost vaccine by the end of next year, enough to inoculate much of the world, including many of its poorest inhabitants. For months, scientists at Oxford have been busily promoting the experimental vaccine’s prospects in bullish terms - beginning even before the first human test subjects were injected with the experimental vaccine.In an interview that appeared on April 11 in Britain’s The Times newspaper, Sarah Gilbert, one of the vaccine’s chief researchers at Oxford, said she was 80% certain her team would be able to produce a successful vaccine, possibly as early as September. That was 12 days before a clinical trial to test its safety began.Oxford didn’t answer detailed questions for this story, but provided a statement saying the trials have been “conducted under the strict national, ethical and regulatory requirements.” It added that “all trial protocols and trial amendments have been subject to review and approval by the relevant authorities. All safety data have been reviewed regularly” by regulators.The adjustment might seem minor in a large-scale study. But it masked a mistake that would have potentially far-reaching consequences: Many of the United Kingdom trial subjects had inadvertently been given only about a half dose of the vaccine.The new volunteers would now receive the correct dose. The trial continued.Much was riding on the Oxford vaccine, a British-led endeavour also involving UK drugs firm AstraZeneca. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government was desperate for a success story after its early mishandling of the pandemic contributed to one of the world’s highest death tolls from COVID-19 - around 65,000 by mid-December. The government has secured 100 million doses.On Nov. 23, Oxford and AstraZeneca delivered positive news. They announced that the regimen of a half dose followed by a full dose booster appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19. Two full doses scored 62%. Oxford researchers have said they aren’t certain why the half-dose regimen was much more effective.Johnson called the vaccine team and tweeted his thanks “for their brilliant work.” He went on, “These results are incredibly encouraging and a major step forward in our fight against COVID-19.”Oxford and AstraZeneca are now hoping for quick authorization by Britain’s regulator. But questions about the trial and the results won’t go away.Some experts say the dosing discrepancy raises doubts about the robustness of the study’s findings. And they worry about another acknowledged peculiarity of the study: The half-dose regimen wasn’t tested on anyone over 55 - the group considered at high risk from COVID-19. In contrast, a vaccine produced by Pfizer/BioNTech was tested on thousands of people over 65, with an efficacy of 94%.John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, said there needed to be a better understanding of how the Oxford trial unfolded. “When you get corporate and academic scientists saying different things, it doesn’t give you the impression of confidence in what they’re doing,” he told Reuters. “Was the dosing thing a mistake or not?”Now a Reuters review of hundreds of pages of clinical trial records, as well as interviews with scientists and industry figures, provides the most detailed account to date of what went wrong with the dosing in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine study. The review found that Oxford researchers were responsible for what their own clinical trial documents called “a potency miscalculation.”For Oxford and AstraZeneca, the stakes could not be higher. They hope to produce up to three billion doses of the low-cost vaccine by the end of next year, enough to inoculate much of the world, including many of its poorest inhabitants. For months, scientists at Oxford have been busily promoting the experimental vaccine’s prospects in bullish terms - beginning even before the first human test subjects were injected with the experimental vaccine.In an interview that appeared on April 11 in Britain’s The Times newspaper, Sarah Gilbert, one of the vaccine’s chief researchers at Oxford, said she was 80% certain her team would be able to produce a successful vaccine, possibly as early as September. That was 12 days before a clinical trial to test its safety began.Oxford didn’t answer detailed questions for this story, but provided a statement saying the trials have been “conducted under the strict national, ethical and regulatory requirements.” It added that “all trial protocols and trial amendments have been subject to review and approval by the relevant authorities. All safety data have been reviewed regularly” by regulators.The MHRA, Britain’s regulator, is expected to decide soon whether to approve the vaccine. The agency is headed by June Raine, a doctor who trained in general medicine at Oxford. The university’s website shows she has made donations, given talks and performed volunteer work for the university’s Somerville College, which she attended.The MHRA said that before any decision on the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is made, Raine “will ensure, for complete transparency” her interactions with Oxford as an alumnus are declared. It added that “none of these ties are of a nature that could give rise to a conflict requiring recusal.”CONTRADICTIONSDeep within the more than 1,100 pages of supplemental appendices published in The Lancet appeared a description of the dosing discrepancy — “a potency miscalculation.” That admission is contained in a “Statistical Analysis Plan” by Oxford and AstraZeneca dated Nov. 17.Six days later, Oxford and AstraZeneca announced the interim results of their clinical trials in the UK and in Brazil. “Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine,” was the headline of an Oxford press release.AstraZeneca’s news release was more muted. “Two different dosing regimens demonstrated efficacy with one showing a better profile,” it stated.In interviews about the results with Reuters and the New York Times, AstraZeneca’s Pangalos spoke of “serendipity,” a “useful mistake” and a “dosing error.”But the firm’s chief executive officer, Pascal Soriot, told Bloomberg: “People call it a mistake — it was not a mistake.” A spokesman for AstraZeneca declined to comment on the statements.Meanwhile, the two scientists leading Oxford’s development of the vaccine — Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill — suggested that the half-dose was not administered by mistake. They didn’t provide evidence. Gilbert, an Oxford vaccinology professor, said it was normal for researchers to look at different dose levels during vaccine trials. “It wasn’t a mix-up in dosing,” she told the Financial Times in an article published on Nov. 27.A few days later, Hill told Reuters it was a conscious decision by researchers to administer a lower dose. “There had been some confusion suggesting that we didn’t know we were giving a half dose when we gave it — that is really not true,” he said.Gilbert and Hill together have about a 10% stake in a private biotech firm called Vaccitech that was spun out of Oxford University, according to a filing with Companies House, the UK’s companies registry, dated Oct. 29. According to a spokeswoman for Vaccitech, the company transferred its rights to the vaccine to Oxford University’s research commercialization arm in exchange for a share of the revenue. “If the vaccine is successful then all shareholders and investors in the company could potentially indirectly benefit,” she wrote in an email.Hill and Gilbert didn’t respond to detailed questions for this article.The conflicting explanations of what went wrong have drawn criticism from some experts. “Personally, I can say that I think their vaccine is much better than their communication,” said Guido Rasi, who until last month was executive director of the European Medicines Agency, the European Union’s regulator. He said the agency eventually will evaluate the trial data.‘AHEAD OF THE WORLD’For months, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was described by officials and in the media as the front-runner in the global race to produce a COVID-19 vaccine.Britain’s health minister, Matt Hancock, told a press conference in April that Britain was “at the forefront of the global effort” to find a vaccine.On June 26, the World Health Organization’s chief scientist, Soumya Swaminathan, said at a press conference that Oxford’s vaccine was probably the world’s leading candidate.Five days later, the then head of Britain’s vaccine procurement program, Kate Bingham, told a parliamentary committee: “Oxford is ahead of the world in that it is the most advanced vaccine anywhere.”Some Oxford scientists did little to dampen the enthusiasm. Asked at the same science and technology parliamentary committee on July 1 whether the world would have to struggle through the coming winter without a vaccine, Gilbert said, “I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.”At the end of July, she alluded to competing vaccine efforts. In an interview on the Royal Society of Biology’s website, she said of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine: “If this doesn’t work, I don’t think anything will work.”Her main partner on the project, Hill, was equally bullish. On May 15, he told Reuters the Oxford/AstraZeneca candidate is “almost certainly the best single dose rapid-response vaccine.” He dismissed as “total unknowns” and a “wild card” the vaccines using mRNA technology, such as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, which have since published results showing they were both at least 94% effective at preventing COVID-19. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is already being distributed in the millions in the United States and the UK.“Why would you take a vaccine technology that is new, unproven, maybe quick to manufacture, but expensive to manufacture - and has never been scaled up and has never been shown to protect against anything in humans, and prioritize that in a global emergency?” he asked. “It’s very odd.”Ian Jones, a professor of virology at Britain’s University of Reading, told Reuters that the plethora of upbeat statements hasn’t benefited the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine candidate.“I don’t want to take away from the fact everybody has worked very hard and (the vaccine) is fundamentally safe and sound,” he said. “But reporting has always had a slightly nationalistic tone, which I don’t think has been helpful.”READ | Explained | 'Out of control' new strain of coronavirus in UKALSO READ | WHO in touch with UK over new Covid-19 strain, seeks clearer picture</p>
]]>
</description>
<link>https://ameblo.jp/lainey47287/entry-12647676547.html</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2021 01:54:21 +0900</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
