Questões de Inglês

Leia o texto para responder a questão.

    There’s still something magical about the idea of browsing a world of products online, choosing what you want and having it delivered to your door, sometimes within hours. You may give a brief thought to the environmental impact when you are drowning in excess packaging (nearly a third of solid waste in the US comes from e-commerce packaging) but it’s easy to ignore the rest of it. Such as the fact that Amazon, in figures released last year, emits nearly as much carbon dioxide as a small country. We are buying more online than ever – and younger age groups are less likely to shop locally than people over 55, according to a new survey.

    Our rapidly growing delivery culture is a challenge, says Tim Anderson, head of transport at the Energy Saving Trust. “It’s easy to go online and buy things cheaply. They might have been shipped from far off countries, manufactured from raw materials and they arrive at our homes at little or no cost.”

    In an ideal world, online shopping could be a better option than making individual trips to the store, large weekly grocery deliveries can be the better choice – as long as we don’t make additional supermarket trips ourselves. We do not live in an ideal world, however, but one in which profit and consumerism are uncontrolled. We don’t behave – and online retailers don’t encourage us to behave – in a sensible way, says Julian Allen, researcher at the transport studies department at the University of Westminster

    Once, we were prepared to wait, but now we want same-day delivery. That, says Allen, “tends to mean stuff gets moved in smaller and smaller quantities. We have vehicles shooting all over the place making single deliveries. We have the concept of ‘free’ delivery, which is a selling point for retailers, but it’s not really free in the sense of what it costs them and what it costs in environmental terms.”

    People also buy things, particularly clothes, with the intention of returning much of the order, resulting in more carriage and mileage. “They are not being penalised financially for doing that,” says Allen.

    So what should we do? “Shop locally, especially if you can use sustainable transport,” is Anderson’s advice.

    And Allen thinks we should be more patient and consolidate orders into one delivery at a time. “Rather than having them delivered to your home, choose to pick them up at a nearby collection point. [Couriers] can bring a lot of stuff to one place.” Don’t then make a special trip by car to collect it, says Allen: “Work it into your daily commute.” Perhaps best of all would be to think before you click.

(Emine Saner. www.theguardian.com, 17.02.2020. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder a questão.

    There’s still something magical about the idea of browsing a world of products online, choosing what you want and having it delivered to your door, sometimes within hours. You may give a brief thought to the environmental impact when you are drowning in excess packaging (nearly a third of solid waste in the US comes from e-commerce packaging) but it’s easy to ignore the rest of it. Such as the fact that Amazon, in figures released last year, emits nearly as much carbon dioxide as a small country. We are buying more online than ever – and younger age groups are less likely to shop locally than people over 55, according to a new survey.

    Our rapidly growing delivery culture is a challenge, says Tim Anderson, head of transport at the Energy Saving Trust. “It’s easy to go online and buy things cheaply. They might have been shipped from far off countries, manufactured from raw materials and they arrive at our homes at little or no cost.”

    In an ideal world, online shopping could be a better option than making individual trips to the store, large weekly grocery deliveries can be the better choice – as long as we don’t make additional supermarket trips ourselves. We do not live in an ideal world, however, but one in which profit and consumerism are uncontrolled. We don’t behave – and online retailers don’t encourage us to behave – in a sensible way, says Julian Allen, researcher at the transport studies department at the University of Westminster

    Once, we were prepared to wait, but now we want same-day delivery. That, says Allen, “tends to mean stuff gets moved in smaller and smaller quantities. We have vehicles shooting all over the place making single deliveries. We have the concept of ‘free’ delivery, which is a selling point for retailers, but it’s not really free in the sense of what it costs them and what it costs in environmental terms.”

    People also buy things, particularly clothes, with the intention of returning much of the order, resulting in more carriage and mileage. “They are not being penalised financially for doing that,” says Allen.

    So what should we do? “Shop locally, especially if you can use sustainable transport,” is Anderson’s advice.

    And Allen thinks we should be more patient and consolidate orders into one delivery at a time. “Rather than having them delivered to your home, choose to pick them up at a nearby collection point. [Couriers] can bring a lot of stuff to one place.” Don’t then make a special trip by car to collect it, says Allen: “Work it into your daily commute.” Perhaps best of all would be to think before you click.

(Emine Saner. www.theguardian.com, 17.02.2020. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder a questão.

    There’s still something magical about the idea of browsing a world of products online, choosing what you want and having it delivered to your door, sometimes within hours. You may give a brief thought to the environmental impact when you are drowning in excess packaging (nearly a third of solid waste in the US comes from e-commerce packaging) but it’s easy to ignore the rest of it. Such as the fact that Amazon, in figures released last year, emits nearly as much carbon dioxide as a small country. We are buying more online than ever – and younger age groups are less likely to shop locally than people over 55, according to a new survey.

    Our rapidly growing delivery culture is a challenge, says Tim Anderson, head of transport at the Energy Saving Trust. “It’s easy to go online and buy things cheaply. They might have been shipped from far off countries, manufactured from raw materials and they arrive at our homes at little or no cost.”

    In an ideal world, online shopping could be a better option than making individual trips to the store, large weekly grocery deliveries can be the better choice – as long as we don’t make additional supermarket trips ourselves. We do not live in an ideal world, however, but one in which profit and consumerism are uncontrolled. We don’t behave – and online retailers don’t encourage us to behave – in a sensible way, says Julian Allen, researcher at the transport studies department at the University of Westminster

    Once, we were prepared to wait, but now we want same-day delivery. That, says Allen, “tends to mean stuff gets moved in smaller and smaller quantities. We have vehicles shooting all over the place making single deliveries. We have the concept of ‘free’ delivery, which is a selling point for retailers, but it’s not really free in the sense of what it costs them and what it costs in environmental terms.”

    People also buy things, particularly clothes, with the intention of returning much of the order, resulting in more carriage and mileage. “They are not being penalised financially for doing that,” says Allen.

    So what should we do? “Shop locally, especially if you can use sustainable transport,” is Anderson’s advice.

    And Allen thinks we should be more patient and consolidate orders into one delivery at a time. “Rather than having them delivered to your home, choose to pick them up at a nearby collection point. [Couriers] can bring a lot of stuff to one place.” Don’t then make a special trip by car to collect it, says Allen: “Work it into your daily commute.” Perhaps best of all would be to think before you click.

(Emine Saner. www.theguardian.com, 17.02.2020. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder a questão.

    There’s still something magical about the idea of browsing a world of products online, choosing what you want and having it delivered to your door, sometimes within hours. You may give a brief thought to the environmental impact when you are drowning in excess packaging (nearly a third of solid waste in the US comes from e-commerce packaging) but it’s easy to ignore the rest of it. Such as the fact that Amazon, in figures released last year, emits nearly as much carbon dioxide as a small country. We are buying more online than ever – and younger age groups are less likely to shop locally than people over 55, according to a new survey.

    Our rapidly growing delivery culture is a challenge, says Tim Anderson, head of transport at the Energy Saving Trust. “It’s easy to go online and buy things cheaply. They might have been shipped from far off countries, manufactured from raw materials and they arrive at our homes at little or no cost.”

    In an ideal world, online shopping could be a better option than making individual trips to the store, large weekly grocery deliveries can be the better choice – as long as we don’t make additional supermarket trips ourselves. We do not live in an ideal world, however, but one in which profit and consumerism are uncontrolled. We don’t behave – and online retailers don’t encourage us to behave – in a sensible way, says Julian Allen, researcher at the transport studies department at the University of Westminster

    Once, we were prepared to wait, but now we want same-day delivery. That, says Allen, “tends to mean stuff gets moved in smaller and smaller quantities. We have vehicles shooting all over the place making single deliveries. We have the concept of ‘free’ delivery, which is a selling point for retailers, but it’s not really free in the sense of what it costs them and what it costs in environmental terms.”

    People also buy things, particularly clothes, with the intention of returning much of the order, resulting in more carriage and mileage. “They are not being penalised financially for doing that,” says Allen.

    So what should we do? “Shop locally, especially if you can use sustainable transport,” is Anderson’s advice.

    And Allen thinks we should be more patient and consolidate orders into one delivery at a time. “Rather than having them delivered to your home, choose to pick them up at a nearby collection point. [Couriers] can bring a lot of stuff to one place.” Don’t then make a special trip by car to collect it, says Allen: “Work it into your daily commute.” Perhaps best of all would be to think before you click.

(Emine Saner. www.theguardian.com, 17.02.2020. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder a questão.

    There’s still something magical about the idea of browsing a world of products online, choosing what you want and having it delivered to your door, sometimes within hours. You may give a brief thought to the environmental impact when you are drowning in excess packaging (nearly a third of solid waste in the US comes from e-commerce packaging) but it’s easy to ignore the rest of it. Such as the fact that Amazon, in figures released last year, emits nearly as much carbon dioxide as a small country. We are buying more online than ever – and younger age groups are less likely to shop locally than people over 55, according to a new survey.

    Our rapidly growing delivery culture is a challenge, says Tim Anderson, head of transport at the Energy Saving Trust. “It’s easy to go online and buy things cheaply. They might have been shipped from far off countries, manufactured from raw materials and they arrive at our homes at little or no cost.”

    In an ideal world, online shopping could be a better option than making individual trips to the store, large weekly grocery deliveries can be the better choice – as long as we don’t make additional supermarket trips ourselves. We do not live in an ideal world, however, but one in which profit and consumerism are uncontrolled. We don’t behave – and online retailers don’t encourage us to behave – in a sensible way, says Julian Allen, researcher at the transport studies department at the University of Westminster

    Once, we were prepared to wait, but now we want same-day delivery. That, says Allen, “tends to mean stuff gets moved in smaller and smaller quantities. We have vehicles shooting all over the place making single deliveries. We have the concept of ‘free’ delivery, which is a selling point for retailers, but it’s not really free in the sense of what it costs them and what it costs in environmental terms.”

    People also buy things, particularly clothes, with the intention of returning much of the order, resulting in more carriage and mileage. “They are not being penalised financially for doing that,” says Allen.

    So what should we do? “Shop locally, especially if you can use sustainable transport,” is Anderson’s advice.

    And Allen thinks we should be more patient and consolidate orders into one delivery at a time. “Rather than having them delivered to your home, choose to pick them up at a nearby collection point. [Couriers] can bring a lot of stuff to one place.” Don’t then make a special trip by car to collect it, says Allen: “Work it into your daily commute.” Perhaps best of all would be to think before you click.

(Emine Saner. www.theguardian.com, 17.02.2020. Adaptado.)

TEXTO

 After Recovery From the Coronavirus, Most People Carry Antibodies

    A new study adds to evidence of immunity among those who have already been exposed to the pathogen. A new study offers a glimmer of hope in the grim fight against the coronavirus: Nearly everyone who has had the disease — regardless of age, sex or severity of illness — makes antibodies to the virus. The study, posted online on Tuesday but not yet reviewed by experts, also hints that anyone who has recovered from infection may safely return to work — although it is unclear how long their protection might last.

    “This is very good news,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York who was not involved with the work.

    Antibodies are immune molecules produced by the body to fight pathogens. The presence of antibodies in the blood typically confers at least some protection against the invader.

    Health officials in several countries, including the United States, have hung their hopes on tests that identify coronavirus antibodies to decide who is immune and can go back to work. People who are immune could replace vulnerable individuals, especially in high-transmission settings like hospitals, building what researchers call “shield immunity” in the population.

    But most antibody tests are fraught with false positives — picking up antibody signals where there are none. The new study relied on a test developed by Florian Krammer, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, that has a less than 1 percent chance of producing false-positive results.

    Several small studies have given reason to hope that people who have had Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, would gain some immunity for some period of time. The new study is the largest by far, with results from 1,343 people in and around New York City.

    The study also eased a niggling worry that only some people — only those who were severely ill, for example — might make antibodies. In fact, the level of antibodies did not differ by age or sex, and even people who had only mild symptoms produced a healthy amount.

    Having antibodies is not the same as having immunity to the virus. But in previous research, Dr. Krammer’s team has shown that antibody levels are closely linked with the ability to disarm the virus, the key to immunity.

    “It really shows that most people do develop antibodies, and that there’s very good correlation between those antibodies and their capability to neutralize viruses,” Dr. Rasmussen said.

    Researchers at Mount Sinai tested people who signed up to be donors of convalescent plasma, antibodies extracted from blood. The project has enrolled more than 15,000 people so far, according to Dr. Ania Wajnberg, who is leading the effort. The new study is an analysis of results of the first set of donors. Over all, only 3 percent of these participants had been seen in the emergency department or had been hospitalized. The remaining subjects had only mild or moderate symptoms.

    “To my knowledge, this is the largest group of people described with mild disease,” Dr. Wajnberg said.

    The criteria for inclusion became more stringent as the team learned more about the coronavirus. For example, they initially required the potential donors to be free of symptoms for only three days but later extended that to 14 days.

    The team tested 624 people who had tested positive for the virus and had recovered. At first, just 511 of them had high antibody levels; 42 had low levels; and 71 had none. When 64 of the subjects with weak or no levels were retested more than a week later, however, all but three had at least some antibodies.

    That suggests the timing of testing for antibodies can greatly affect the results, the researchers said. “We weren’t looking exactly at this, but we had enough to say that 14 days is probably a little too early,” Dr. Wajnberg said.

(Adapted from: www.www.nytimes.com)