Vocalizations of European Honey Buzzards (Pernis apivorus) in Southern Africa

Contrary to some sources, the European Honey Buzzard is not silent in Africa. This study documents 51 records of the species vocalizing on the continent. Vocalizations were given by birds apparently encountered alone (n=30) and when accompanied by another European Honey Buzzard (n=22). Where age was known, 11 calling birds were adults and ten were juveniles. Where details were available, most calls were given by birds in flight (n=30), with 11 from perched birds and two from birds heard calling while both in flight and perched. In most cases the sex of the bird was not recorded (n=42) and young birds (first- and second-years) are difficult to sex with certainty; of the remainder, two were males and nine were females. Most calls were the typical flight call of the species (n=43), with apparent alarm calls (n=7) the next most frequent call type. Most calls were delivered in flight (n=31), 19 by single birds and 12 by two birds together in flight. The calling by two birds was associated with flight displays similar to those described on the breeding grounds and occurred especially in late summer (December onwards; 25/40 records). A relatively high proportion of calls occurred during interactions between two European Honey Buzzards (n=18). Calling associated with two birds together and accompanied by aerial displays has not been described in Africa before, and is suggestive of either early pairing of the adult birds prior to migration or breeding activity locally in Africa. Vocalizations between young birds though may be more social as opposed to sexual in nature. The large (5X) increase in records of European Honey Buzzards in South Africa in recent years likely increases the chances of conspecific interaction. It also raises the possibility of breeding, especially in more-temperate South Africa.

Impact of COVID-19 on Volume of Infection Prevention and Control Calls at a Tertiary-Care Center in Iowa, 2018–2020

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected healthcare systems worldwide, but the impact on infection prevention and control (IPC) programs has not been fully evaluated. We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPC consultation requests. Methods: The University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics comprises an 811-bed hospital that admits >36,000 patients yearly and >200 outpatient clinics. Questions about IPC can be addressed to the Program of Hospital Epidemiology via e-mail, in person, or through our phone line. We routinely record date and time, call source, reason for the call, and estimated time to resolve questions for all phone line requests. We defined calls during 2018–2019 as the pre–COVID-19 period and calls from January to December 2020 as the COVID-19 period. Results: In total, 6,564 calls were recorded from 2018 to 2020. In the pre–COVID-19 period (2018–2019), we received a median of 71 calls per month (range, 50–119). The most frequent call sources were inpatient units (n = 902; 50%), department of public health (n = 357; 20%), laboratory (n = 171; 9%), and outpatient clinics (n = 120; 7%) (Figure 1). The most common call topics were isolation and precautions (n = 606; 42%), outside institutions requests (n = 324; 22%), environmental and construction (n = 148; 10%), and infection exposures (n = 149; 10%). The most frequent infection-related calls were about tuberculosis (17%), gram-negative organisms (14%), and influenza (9%). During the COVID-19 period, the median monthly call volume increased 500% to 368 per month (range, 149–829). Most (83%) were COVID-19 related. The median monthly number of COVID-19 calls was 302 (range, 45–674). The median monthly number of non–COVID-19 calls decreased to 56 (range, 36–155). The most frequent call sources were inpatient units (57%), outpatient clinics (16%), and the department of public health (5%). Most calls concerned isolation and precautions (50%) and COVID-19 testing (20%). The mean time required to respond to each question was 10 minutes (range, 2–720). The biggest surges in calls during the COVID-19 period were at the beginning of the pandemic (March 2020) and during the hospital peak COVID-19 census (November 2020). Conclusions: In addition to supporting a proactive COVID-19 response, our IPC program experienced a 500% increase in consultation requests. Planning for future bioemergencies should include creative strategies to provide additional resources to increase response capacity within IPC programs.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

El modelo irlandés de protección de los derechos fundamentales

El modelo irlandés de derechos fundamentales resulta de utilidad para la comparación con España. Como elementos positivos que podrían inspirar una mejora de nuestro modelo pueden mencionarse: la apertura expresa y argumentada del catálogo de los derechos; un mecanismo institucional de declaración de incompatibilidad entre la ley nacional y el CEDH; el llamamiento frecuente al referéndum de reforma constitucional; y un sistema más accesible y menos politizado de control de constitucionalidad de las leyes. Como problemas comunes a ambos países, que manifiestan su retraso en relación con las tendencias recientes del Derecho internacional y de la doctrina, cabe mencionar: una resistencia a superar la concepción formal de la igualdad y a reconocer derechos fundamentales sociales, y un uso débil e incoherente del principio de proporcionalidad.The irish model of fundamental rights provides an interesting comparator for the Spanish model. Positive elements which could inspire an improvement of our model: the express development of unenumerated rights within the current catalog of rights; a statutory mechanism for declaration of incompatibility between national law and the ECHR; a frequent call to reform the constitution via a referendum process; and a more accessible and less politicized system of constitutional review of laws. Problems common to both countries, are the delay in implementation of recent trends in international law and doctrine; it is also worth mentioning: a resistance to overcoming the formal conception of equality and recognizing fundamental socio-economic rights, and a weak and incoherent use of the principle of proportionality.

Vocal behaviour of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis)

We describe the vocal behaviour of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) from 465 h of observation across five sites in north-east New South Wales and south-east Queensland. A monosyllabic or polysyllabic nasal grunt was the most frequent call (56% of 208 calls); it ranged from single calls to sequences of up to 20-min duration (mean 2.1 min ± 0.6, s.e.) and was heard on 34% of nights (n = 83) at two sites. The rate of the nasal grunt showed a positive relationship with population density at one site. The nasal grunt was typically made when conspecifics were near the caller, but responses were infrequent (7% of observations). Call playback produced no discernable change in call response. The nasal grunt appears to regulate individual spacing by facilitating mutual avoidance, a function hypothesised to be an evolutionary precursor to the use of calls in territorial defence. Threatening calls were the next most common vocalisation (17% of calls) and were accompanied by scuffles and/or chases. They were also used when gliders were preyed upon and during animal handling. The calling behaviour of the squirrel glider confirms the importance of vocal communication among petaurid gliders.