Prompt and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been important during public health responses for containing the spread of COVID-19, including in hospital settings (1-3). In vitro diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), such as real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can be expensive, have relatively long turnaround times, and require experienced laboratory personnel.* Antigen detection tests can be rapidly and more easily performed and are less expensive. The performance † of antigen detection tests, compared with that of NAATs, is an area of interest for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Quidel Sofia 2 SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) (Quidel Corporation) received Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for use in symptomatic patients within 5 days of symptom onset (4). The reported test positive percentage agreement § between this test and an RT-PCR test result is 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.3%-99.4%), and the negative percentage agreement is 100.0% (95% CI = 97.9%-100.0%) in symptomatic patients. ¶ However, performance in asymptomatic persons in a university setting has shown lower sensitivity (5); assessment of performance in a clinical setting is ongoing. Data collected during June 30-August 31, 2020, were analyzed to compare antigen test performance with that of RT-PCR in a hospital setting. Among 1,732 paired samples from asymptomatic patients, the antigen test sensitivity was 60.5%, and specificity was 99.5% when compared with RT-PCR. Among 307 symptomatic persons, sensitivity and specificity were 72.1% and 98.7%, respectively. Health care providers must remain aware of the lower sensitivity of this test among asymptomatic and symptomatic persons and consider confirmatory NAAT testing in high-prevalence settings because a false-negative result might lead to failures in infection control and prevention practices and cause delays in diagnosis, isolation, and treatment. * https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v3 † Test performance includes sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive value. § The estimate for positive percentage agreement and negative percentage agreement is used in place of sensitivity in the absence of a reference standard test for comparison.
There is great debate over how to measure progress towards ecological sustainability, and a number of approaches deployed by various groups to try and achieve it. One of these is the “ecovillage,” a form of communal living—the primary purpose of which is to enable a reduction in consumption through the collectivization of resources. This paper presents a case study of an ecovillage named Dancing Rabbit, which stands as an example counter to mainstream discourses on progress through the relatively successful approach to ecological sustainability. In the dwellings they have built, their resource consumption patterns, and the diverse attitudes towards technology use that they express, the ecovillagers in this study demonstrate narratives of progress which center an ecological motive over one of profitable innovation. Rather than rely on modernist assumptions of engineering our way to sustainable living through advanced technology or embrace primitivist notions of rejecting it all together, the case study of Dancing Rabbit presents an approach functioning as an alternative to that prevailing dichotomy.
Recent scholarship on social movement groups has increasingly focused on the relationships between lifestyle and politics. As walls of classical social movement theories holding up the false dichotomy of personal and political spheres continue to crumble, I seek in this article to fill some of the space connecting personal and political work by expanding on the concept of collective action reservoirs. Based on an ethnographic case study of an intentional community named Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, I demonstrate how participation in a shared lifestyle can be the basis for a politicized account of everyday life. The members of this village have developed a unique lifestyle that they consider to be a form of political engagement, in which I show that they have different orientations to the definition of activism and to being in a “reserve guard” for direct action. They have developed and adopted an approach where lifestyle is the primary means of seeking change while direct action is held in reserve. I conclude by theorizing that the collective action reservoir represents a long-term stable base for social movement mobilizations.
This article outlines the various ways members of an intentional community erect barriers to entry in their village and lifestyle, and how they use boundary maintenance tactics to both protect their own personal spheres as well as the integrity of their mission and vision. Members of Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage (“DR”) seek to create an alternative model for a more just and sustainable world. They face twin challenges in seeking to expand that model through recruitment to their community and retaining the integrity of their unique lifestyle that makes it possible and enjoyable. DR utilizes processes of recruitment and retention to construct and defend a collective identity based in accommodating for personal and political concerns, one characterized specifically by the values of egalitarianism and environmentalism as focal points for their shared lifestyle. Yet they also erect barriers to keep out potential recruits who may compromise that identity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.