Explore the vast range of titles available.

British pre-industrial economic growth has traditionally been analysed from the Malthusian point of view and other more optimistic approaches, but in many cases, ignoring environmental factors. This article explores the inclusion of the climate in this general debate, focusing on one of the colder periods of the last 500 years, known as the Maunder Minimum. The provisional results suggest that climate change and the resulting adaptations may have influenced the start of the English Agricultural Revolution, the Energy Transition and the European Divergence. However, from an econometric point of view these results are not fully conclusive, making it necessary to continue working with better primary sources and other alternative methodologies.

This article examines the impact of climatic variability on the English Agricultural Revolution using Allen’s Nitrogen Hypothesis. While half of the variation in yields can be attributed to nitrogen-fixing plants, better cultivation, and improved seeds, the remainder can be attributed to changing climatic conditions during the relatively cold period from c. 1645–1715 and the subsequent warmer phase. The study finds that farmers made even greater efforts than observed yields during the colder and more humid climate of the second half of the seventeenth century and the early eighteenth. Conversely, increasing temperatures in the following period had a positive effect on agricultural productivity, indicating that farmers' role during this phase have been overrated.

1. Objective and motivation.During the 17th and 18th centuries, decisive changes took place in England that allow us to understand the origins of one of the milestones of contemporary economic development: the Industrial Revolution. The first transition from an organic economy (based on the capture of solar energy through photosynthesis) to one centered on the consumption of fossil fuels (Wrigley, 1991; Allen, 2009) triggered continued growth in per capita output, the origin of the current global climate crisis (Malm, 2016).

This article examines the impact of climatic variability on the English Agricultural Revolution using Allen’s Nitrogen Hypothesis. While half of the variation in yields can be attributed to nitrogen-fixing plants, better cultivation, and improved seeds, the remainder can be attributed to changing climatic conditions during the relatively cold period from c. 1645–1715 and the subsequent warmer phase. The study finds that farmers made even greater efforts than observed yields during the colder and more humid climate of the second half of the seventeenth century and the early eighteenth. Conversely, increasing temperatures in the following period had a positive effect on agricultural productivity, indicating that farmers' role during this phase have been overrated.

Fue tan significativo, que las fuerzas conservadoras católicas lo sometieron al silencio hasta que el papa Juan XXIII lo rehabilitó para participar en el Concilio Vaticano II; sin embargo, su aporte sólo pudo durar hasta la subida al pontificado del conservador Juan Pablo II, quien, sin negarle otros méritos, fue protector y beneficiario del Opus Dei y de otras tendencias y comportamientos que muy poco fortalecieron al catolicismo sano. Como lo expresó Jacques Maritain, citado por el mismo Meyer, los obispos, que por principio no son ni políticos profesionales ni arribistas, se dejaron llevar fácilmente al remolque del poder civil, de la sumisión de los actos episcopales a la censura del Estado. Sin embargo, no obstante la indiscutible realidad y resonancia de aquel pasado sangriento, el presente que nos rodea con sus amenazas e incertidumbres acompañadas de ciertos proyectos alevosos y desafiantes de gobiernos, que se suman a ajustes de cuentas todavía vivos y pendientes, en otro tenor y contexto, nos mantienen en el campo del riesgo.

Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to be a priority health problem; According to the World Health Organization data from October 13, 2020, 37,704,153 confirmed COVID-19 cases have been reported, including 1,079,029 deaths, since the outbreak. The identification of potential symptoms has been reported to be a useful tool for clinical decision-making in emergency departments to avoid overload and improve the quality of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of symptoms as a diagnostic tool for SARS -CoV-2 infection. Methods An observational, cross-sectional, prospective and analytical study was carried out, during the period of time from April 14 to July 21, 2020. Data (demographic variables, medical history, respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms) were collected by emergency physicians. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was made using SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. The diagnostic accuracy of these characteristics for COVID-19 was evaluated by calculating the positive and negative likelihood ratios. A Mantel-Haenszel and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association of symptoms with COVID-19. Results A prevalence of 53.72% of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed. The symptom with the highest sensitivity was cough 71%, and a specificity of 52.68%. The symptomatological scale, constructed from 6 symptoms, obtained a sensitivity of 83.45% and a specificity of 32.86%, taking ≥2 symptoms as a cut-off point. The symptoms with the greatest association with SARS-CoV-2 were: anosmia odds ratio (OR) 3.2 (95% CI; 2.52–4.17), fever OR 2.98 (95% CI; 2.47–3.58), dyspnea OR 2.9 (95% CI; 2.39–3.51]) and cough OR 2.73 (95% CI: 2.27–3.28). Conclusion The combination of ≥2 symptoms / signs (fever, cough, anosmia, dyspnea and oxygen saturation < 93%, and headache) results in a highly sensitivity model for a quick and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19, and should be used in the absence of ancillary diagnostic studies. Symptomatology, alone and in combination, may be an appropriate strategy to use in the emergency department to guide the behaviors to respond to the disease. Trial registration Institutional registration R-2020-3601-145, Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks 17 CI-09-015-034, National Bioethics Commission: 09 CEI-023-2017082 .