Monetary policy, exchange rates and stock prices in the Middle East region

A structural vector autoregressive model is employed to investigate the impact of monetary policy and real exchange rate shocks on the stock market performance of Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. In order to identify the structural shocks both short run and long run restrictions are applied. Unlike previous literature the contemporaneous interdependence between the financial variables are left unrestricted to give a more accurate depiction of the relationships. The heterogeneity of the results reflect the different monetary policy frameworks and stock market characteristics of these countries. Mainly, monetary policy and the real exchange rate shocks have a significant short run impact on the stock prices of the countries that apply a relatively more independent monetary policy and flexible exchange rates.

Differing methodologies to measure microbe dispersal during hand drying

Background: Having previously investigated the dispersal by different hand drying methods of a chemical indicator, fungi and bacteria on the hands of users, this new study assessed the potential for viral dispersal. Aims/Objectives: To determine differences between hand drying methods in their capacity to disperse viruses on the hands of users to other occupants of public washrooms and into the washroom environment. Method: A harmless virus was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different hand drying devices (jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser). Viral dispersal was assessed at different heights and distances from the hand drying devices and also at different times after use by means of an air sampler. Results: The jet air dryer was shown to produce significantly more dispersal of virus than the warm air dryer or paper towels. After use of the jet air dryer, high numbers of virus were detected at a range of heights with maximum numbers between 0.61 and 1.22 metres. Virus was also detected at distances of up to 3 metres from the jet air dryer and in the air for up to 15 minutes after its use. The warm air dryer and paper towel dispenser produced low or zero viral counts at different heights, different distances and times after use. Conclusion: Jet air dryers have a greater potential than other hand drying methods to disperse viruses on the hands and contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment.

The risk of viral dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying methods

Background World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different handdrying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.

Investigating the rates and impacts of near misses and related incidents among UK cyclists

The paper investigates the occurrence of non-injury incidents among cyclists in the UK, seeking to (i) generate a rate that can be compared with injury rates, (ii) analyse factors affecting incident rates, and (iii) analyse factors affecting the impact of incidents on cyclists. We collected data on non-injury cycling ‘incidents’ (near misses and other frightening and/or annoying incidents) from 1692 online diaries of cycle trip stages1 and incidents, participants having signed up in advance for a specific day. Following data cleaning and coding, a dataset was created covering 1532 diary days and 3994 records of incidents occurring within the UK. Incident rates were calculated and compared to injury risks for cyclists. Cross-tabulation and regression were used to identify factors affecting incident rates and the effect an incident has on the cyclist. Frightening or annoying non-injury incidents, unlike slight injuries, are an everyday experience for most people cycling in the UK. For regular cyclists ‘very scary’ incidents (rated as 3 on a 0–3 scale) are on average a weekly experience, with deliberate aggression experienced monthly. Per mile, non-injury incidents were more frequent for people making shorter and slower trips. People aged over 55 were at lower risk, as were those cycling at the weekend and outside the morning peak. Incidents that involved motor vehicles, especially those involving larger vehicles, were more frightening than those that did not. Near miss and other non-injury incidents are widespread in the UK and may have a substantial impact on cycling experience and uptake. Policy and research should initially target the most frightening types of incident, such as very close passes and incidents involving large vehicles. Further attention needs to be paid to the experiences of groups under-represented among cyclists, such as women making shorter trips.

Evaluation of the potential for virus dispersal during hand drying: a comparison of three methods

Aims To use a MS2 bacteriophage model to compare three hand-drying methods, paper towels (PT), a warm air dryer (WAD) and a jet air dryer (JAD), for their potential to disperse viruses and contaminate the immediate environment during use. Methods and Results Participants washed their gloved hands with a suspension of MS2 bacteriophage and hands were dried with one of the three hand-drying devices. The quantity of MS2 present in the areas around each device was determined using a plaque assay. Samples were collected from plates containing the indicator strain, placed at varying heights and distances and also from the air. Over a height range of 0.15-1.65 m, the JAD dispersed an average of >60 and >1300-fold more plaque-forming units (pfu) compared to the WAD and PT (P <0.0001), respectively. The JAD dispersed an average of >20 and >190-fold more pfu in total compared to WAD and PT at all distances tested up to 3 m (P <0.01), respectively. Air samples collected around each device 15 minutes after use indicated that the JAD dispersed an average of >50 and >100-fold more pfu compared to the WAD and PT (P <0.001), respectively. Conclusions Use of the JAD lead to significantly greater and further dispersal of MS2 bacteriophage from artificially contaminated hands when compared to the WAD and PT. Significance and Impact of Study The choice of hand drying device should be considered carefully in areas where infection prevention concerns are paramount, such as healthcare settings and the food industry.

Comparison of virus dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying devices

Background World Health Organization and EU hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different hand-drying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.