Signing ceremony of the « Sacichawasihc » relationship agreement. This agreement recently won first place at the Saskatchewan Municipal Awards, which recognize innovative communities. « It`s not the First Nations that make First Nations better, or Battleford or North Battleford that make their cities better, it`s all of us working together, » he said, adding that the agreement brings a renewed sense of hope and will truly benefit those who need help. Mayor Ryan Bater, the deal is one of the city`s top priorities and the key vessel to ensure neighbors work together to address similar challenges. Bater hopes the award will give the groups the wind in their sails and attract the attention of federal and state politicians for support in developing framework conditions. « The agreement is one of our highest priorities, if not our highest priority, » Bater said. Sweetgrass First Nation Chief Laurence Paskemin hopes the agreement will allow signatories to pool resources and address negative and positive issues in their communities, such as employment and economic opportunities. The towns of North Battleford and Battleford, as well as some surrounding First Nations, came together to form a large community at their Sacichawasihc Relationship Agreement signing ceremony. According to a Saskatchewan Municipal Awards press release, the winning practice was to « develop an agreement that gives municipal and Indigenous governments the opportunity to work together in a spirit of reconciliation and cooperation through the establishment of relationships between governments. » This agreement, signed by Battleford, North Battleford, Sweetgrass First Nation, Saulteaux First Nation, Little Pine First Nation and Lucky Man First Nation, aims to address everything from respect for crime to health care and everything in between. Kenny Moccasin called the deal unique in Saskatchewan, but said he shouldn`t have needed a deal to get everyone to work together, and said it should have started years and years ago.

Nevertheless, the Chief of the Saulteaux First Nation is eager to see how the group can spur economic development and work together for the betterment of all. During his speech, Mayor Ames Leslie highlighted the Historic Past of the City of Battleford, saying no one is proud of it when it comes to Indigenous relations and the treatment of Indigenous peoples. A regional Community framework has been developed to ensure continuity and sustainability of relations in the future. Come celebrate with us. When: Friday, June 21, 2019 « After signing the agreement, we knew that once we had our local partners gathered in the framework, we wanted to attract the attention of the highest levels of government. I hope that this award will achieve that. On February 15, 2019, the group agreed that it was time to promote the idea of a jointly developed regional community framework that would serve to ensure the continuity and sustainability of relationships. The agreement does not state that it can be interpreted as removing the treaty or the rights of participating First Nations or limiting the responsibilities and laws of local governments.

The framework calls on governments to form a working committee to work together to build intergovernmental relations, cultural and historical prosperity and engagement, collaborative land use planning, social improvement, environmental responsibility and shared advocacy, among other things. The Chief of Little Pine First Nation spoke at the first meeting of the group, which signed in June, which was announced as « a step forward in reconciliation. » The agreement commits the City of North Battleford, the City of Battleford, Moosomin, Sweetgrass, Saulteaux and Little Pine First Nation and the Lucky Man Cree Nation to work together for the socio-economic benefits and vibrancy of the region. The agreement, signed earlier this year between North Battleford, Battleford and five First Nations, earned them all a first place at the Saskatchewan Municipal Award. « Our ancestors agreed to divide the earth and work with everyone, and it is a similar agreement that we are signing again today, » he said. In June 2018, several leaders from the region came together and decided it was time to find better ways to work together. In the months that followed, the leaders of the surrounding communities and the two mayors of Battleford continued to meet. « This is no longer an urban initiative. It`s a regional initiative, and we`re here together, » Bater said. Second place was given to support for emergency medical services (City of Radville and MR. of Laurier, The Gap, Lake Alma, Souris Valley, Surprise Valley and Lomond). Third place went to the drain pollution prevention program « Beware of the Beast of Fat » (City of Lloydminster). The Regional Cooperation Award was given to regional asset management and group learning (villages of Broderick, Conquest, Elbow, Glenside, Kenaston, Loreburn, Strongfield and Beechy, resort village of Mistusinne, towns of Central Butte, Dundurn, Hanley and Craik, and MR of Loreburn and Fertile Valley).

« This coalition, this framework will not change anything that happened hundreds of years ago in the city of Battleford, » he said. « But this is the first step in showing that this council, myself as Mayor and the City of Battleford are doing what we can to make a difference and make sure the story is known. » Lucky Man Cree Nation Chief Crystal Okemow said a lot of work is on the horizon to stem the tide of challenges facing nearby communities. She said it was encouraging to get involved in something innovative and unique in the province. Location: 102nd Street and 12th Avenue, North Battleford (weather permitting) Alternative location: Agriplex – North Battleford Exhibition Centre « The work we are doing here is a recognition that what we have done so far to address the issues facing all of our communities is not working, » said Wayne Semaganis, CEO of Little Pine. But as a leader, the chief said they are the ones who have to correct mistakes and correct things on behalf of everyone who lives in the area. « We`re trying to do something different because I think our goal at the end of the day is the well-being of our people, » she said. « When you have the well-being of your employees at your fingertips, difficult discussions need to take place and you need to work together to achieve long-term goals. » He said the division of the country comes with a common future, and in it common enemies seen in issues such as poverty, drug addiction, food security and homelessness. « We realized that we have a variety of challenges as a region. and in order to respond appropriately, we must coordinate the four government decrees that are present here.

So this is the beginning that we are aligning the ordinances of municipal and Indigenous governments, hoping to get the provincial and federal levels of government to work with us as well, » said Bater. The ceremony took place on June 21 in North Battleford during the pancake breakfast at the Battle River Treated 6 Health Centre. Bater believes that many problems cannot be dealt with properly without the help of other branches of government. The awards will be presented to the winning rural communities at the MRSA mid-term conference on November 13 at the Queensbury Convention Centre in Regina and to the winning urban communities at the SUMA Annual Conference in Regina in February 2020. « It`s designed so that we can bring together not only First Nations and local leaders, but also provinces and federals, because we often need the provincial and federal levels when you`re working on something, » Paskemin said. First place went to the Sacichawasihc Relations Agreement, signed by the City of North Battleford, the City of Battleford, Moosomin, Sweetgrass, Saulteaux, Little Pine First Nations and Lucky Man Cree Nation. This is how the chiefs described the signing of the Sacichawasihc Relationship Agreement. Little Pine First Nation Chief Wayne Semaganis said the first meetings between the groups were a struggle because everyone approached with a different mindset. He said it was emblematic of the history of the territory.

A year ago, the city hoisted the Treaty 6 flag in front of City Hall. Mayor Ryan Bater said it was done to remind everyone who lives and visits the Battlefords that the only reason everything is here is because the Aborigines have agreed to divide the land. Laurence Paskemin, Chief of sweetgrass First Nation, says this is a good first step in getting leaders to work together. « These enemies are strong, » Bater said. « If we fight them alone, we fail. When we think about the future, I don`t think we would be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye if we knew we could have done things differently if we had known we could have come together and worked together to find solutions. He said the country`s eyes are already on the Battlefords and will continue to be so, but « we will show them how to do it right. » But he and his colleagues at the table admit that they must use the help of high levels of government to solve a number of problems that plague their communities. The winning projects were selected by the Saskatchewan Municipal Awards Committee, which combed through 17 nominations from 51 communities. .

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Guide 51 defines risk as « the combination of the probability of occurrence of damage and the severity of such damage ». 10 To evaluate and select test methods, laboratory professionals typically compare sensitivity (ASF) and specificity (PNA), followed by a positive predictive value (PPV) and a negative predictive value (NPV), the probability that a positive or negative test result represents a truly positive or negative patient in the tested population. These measures alone do not adequately or simply predict the level of risk to the patient or the clinical costs associated with each test method. To estimate the probability of damage, we calculated the probability that a positive result is a false positive (PFP) and the probability that a negative result is a false negative (PFN). PFP is the number of false positives as a percentage of all positive results. PFP is the rest of PPV; PFP = 1 – PPV. NFP is the number of false negative results as a percentage of all negative results. PFP is the rest of the NPV; NFP = 1 –NPV. We roughly estimated the cost of the incorrect results and, from these, we projected the severity of the damage as the cost to patients and healthcare facilities. The APP and NAP are inherent in the testing procedure. The probability of true and false outcomes in clinical settings changes with the prevalence of the virus or antibody in the population being tested. « In a population with a prevalence of 5%, a test with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 95% gives a positive predictive value of 49%. In other words, less than half of those who test positive will actually have antibodies. Alternatively, in a population with an antibody prevalence of more than 52%, the same test gives a positive predictive value of more than 95%, meaning that less than one in 20 people who test positive have a false-positive test result.

« 11 Effects of increasing the percentage of positive consent (APP) (sensitivity) on false outcomes with baseline prevalence and negative agreement percentage (NPA). Figure 1 shows how the increasing prevalence of truly positive samples affects PFP and NFP. The number of patients testing positive for sars-coV-2 virus or sars-coV antibody increases with prevalence. Prevalence is determined by the spread of COVID-19 in the tested population and is beyond the control of test selection and quality. The number of true positive samples increases with prevalence and true-negative samples decrease. False positive tests are part of the truly negative samples, so they also decrease. The models for all tests are similar, but not identical, because the basic values for PPA and PNA differ between test types. When prevalence increases from 2% to 20%, with constant ASF and NAP at baseline, the PFP decreases significantly, from 70.3% to 16.2% for molecular tests, from 58.0% to 10.1% for antigen tests and from 75.9% to 20.5% for antibody tests. Unlike false positives, which decrease with prevalence, false negatives increase. False negative test results are among the truly positive samples, so they are more than tenfold compared to prevalence: from 0.3% to 3.5% for molecular tests, 0.8% to 8.9% for antigenic tests and 0.7% to 7.6% for antibody tests. This dramatic increase can be masked by looking only at the net present value, which overall decreases slightly from 99.7% to 96.5%. An example is the microbiological swab of the throat, which is used in patients with sore throat.

Usually, publications that report the PPV of a throat swab report the likelihood that this bacterium is present in the throat, rather than the patient being sick with the bacteria found. If the presence of this bacterium always led to a sore throat, PPV would be very useful. However, bacteria can colonize individuals in a harmless way and never lead to infection or disease. The sore throat that occurs in these people is caused by other pathogens such as a virus. In this situation, the gold standard used in the evaluation study represents only the presence of bacteria (which could be harmless), but not a causal bacterial sore throat. It can be shown that this problem affects the positive predictive value much more than the negative predictive value. [5] To evaluate diagnostic tests where the gold standard only looks at the possible causes of the disease, one can use an extension of the predictive value, called the etiological predictive value. [6] [7] We show the value of reporting the probability of false positive outcomes, the probability of false negative outcomes, and the cost to patients and health care. These risk measures can be calculated from the risk factors for PPA and PDA in combination with estimates of prevalence, cost and number of reff (people infected with 1 positive CARRIER of SARS-CoV-2). For tests that require even higher accuracy, such as a sensitivity of 99% or a negative predictive value, extreme caution should be exercised when interpreting the experiment, although there may be only slight uncertainties in the comparator.

In these cases, a seemingly reasonable requirement of robust test performance in almost all cases leads to the rejection of even a perfect test, as the effects shown in this document are not taken into account. Stakeholders interested in very high performance (i.e. 99% sensitivity or net present value) should bear in mind that these high-performance characteristics can only be concretely demonstrated against an almost error-free comparison method. In the absence of a near-flawless comparison method, it will not be possible to validate such high test performance characteristics, and attempts to do so are likely to lead to an underestimation of test candidates` performance. The influence of an imperfect comparator on very powerful tests is analyzed quantitatively in S7 Supporting Information (« Very High Performance Tests »). The FDA`s recent guidance for laboratories and manufacturers, « FDA Policy for Diagnostic Tests for Coronavirus Disease-2019 during Public Health Emergency, » states that users should use a clinical agreement study to determine performance characteristics (sensitivity/PPA, specificity/NPA). Although the terms sensitivity/specificity are widely known and used, the terms PPA/NPA are not. PPP, percentage of positive approval. Ground Truth: the true positive or negative state of a subject in a binary classification scheme.

If a person tested has a different probability of having disease before the test than the control groups used to determine PPV and NPV, PPV and NPV are generally different from the positive and negative probabilities after the test, with PPV and NPV referring to those established by the control groups and post-test probabilities referring to that of the person being tested (estimated, by probability ratios). . . . .

Excellent article. However, you missed an additional option. Conditional cancellation. At this point, Bob agrees to allow Sally to sign up and sell without paying two commissions. This could be, for example: Bob agrees to accept a fee from Salley to offset the initial costs Bob incurred when listing the property. I mean, let`s be realistic. No one would take a 1,000km flight with only 500km of fuel and Bob would never have agreed to take over the list at a shorter time. If your agent has carefully performed his duties (open days held, active advertising, hiring potential buyers), certain conditions may accompany the release. For example, you can get authorization if you pay a portion of the expenses incurred by the agent, or the agent can try to negotiate a referral fee with your new listing agent, cammarasana says. Clients typically want to opt out of a listing contract because their home isn`t sold or there`s a personality conflict with the agent, says Arlene Schwartz, vice president of the Smithtown branch of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage. « When we include a list, I send a letter to each client letting them know that they can call me if they have any problems and that we will try to resolve the issue within 72 hours. Give your agency a chance to solve the problem, » says Schwartz.

If Sally is AFTER the 31st. June sold, Sally`s contract with Bob has expired and is not in Cancel Protected status and only has to pay the registration commission to George`s real estate agent. Example: Sally points to her home at Bob the Realtor from January to June 31. Sally requests an unconditional release form on March 31. Bob can do 2 things: 2. Unconditional Release Form – This is when the seller requests the cancellation of the listing and does not want to be on the « Cancellation Protection » status, does not want to wait for the expiration date of the listing contract and wants to register it immediately with a new broker. The broker does not have to comply with this request and there is nothing the seller can do about it. A listing contract is a two-way contract between you and your real estate agent`s brokerage firm that ensures you pay them a commission if they sell your home within a certain period of time. If you thought the breakup was difficult, try breaking up with your real estate agent. It`s not always that easy, especially if you`ve signed a registration contract. It`s considered a binding and enforceable contract that typically lasts six months, says Enza Cammarasana, a real estate lawyer at Northport.

It allows the agent to put the house up for sale and do everything possible to sell the property, including placing ads and holding open houses. « However, most enrollment agreements include a termination clause that varies from broker to broker and sets out specific cancellation terms, » she says. Request a written release: Inform your agent immediately if you wish to cancel. Do not delay this communication. Submit your request in writing and document your expectations. An email works perfectly. Various factors can help you cancel an offer, although if your agent has experience, you may want to reconsider the cancellation. In many small communities, it can take years for a home to be sold. Still, some reasons for cancellation are: Unethical behavior: Agents rarely bother to be unethical, but it can happen. Perhaps they have reversed brokerage fees or promised buyers too much, which is impossible. If you think your agent doesn`t represent your best interests, it may be time to cancel the offer and look for a new agent.

Photos are probably the first thing a potential buyer will see in an offer, and they could make or break the sale. If a buyer doesn`t get a good idea of the photos, they probably won`t bother to come to your open house or make an offer. Photos should be clean, bright and professionally made to keep your home in the best light. If not, you have reason to be dissatisfied. At this point, you can request to be assigned to another agent within the same broker or ask to terminate the contract completely. Since your offer is technically with the broker – not the agent – you may find it easier to simply ask for another agent within that broker. There are two types of exclusive registration agreements. Exclusive sales rights agreements compensate a listing agent with a commission, regardless of how the buyer was found. Exclusive agency contracts deny compensation to the agent if the seller is the one who ultimately finds a buyer himself.

Miscommunication: If you prefer your agent`s daily or weekly updates and don`t provide them, this is a good reason to cancel an offer. However, first of all, give your agent the opportunity to improve their communication skills. Don`t just tear down the list. No internet presence: Google and other search engines are important tools to bring your ad around the world. If you type your address into a search engine and don`t return any results, it`s a big red flag that little is being done to sell your home. .