As Interim Editor of Psychodynamic Psychiatry, I have the honor to comment on Richard C. Friedman's extraordinary career. At the time of his death in late March of this year, Richard C. Friedman (RCF) had been Editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Psychodynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis for eight years. During that time, the journal was renamed Psychodynamic Psychiatry and became the first English-language journal in the world about psychodynamic psychiatry. At the time of his death, Dr. Friedman was Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Weill-Cornell School of Medicine and Lecturer in Psychiatry at the Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons. He was also on the faculty of the Columbia Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research and Research Professor at the Derner School of Adelphi University.Near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, on April 13, 2020, about 50 members of the American Academy of Psychodynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis convened through Zoom to talk about the impact of the pandemic on their practices, their patients, and themselves.* They offer their reflections through oral and written comments. Participants were encouraged to organize their contributions around the dimensions of administrative psychiatry, the structure of clinical care, the content of clinical care, the patients' reported personal experiences, and the psychiatrists' reported personal experiences. Themes identified and discussed are paradoxical separateness, seeking an optimal interpersonal distance, finding new idioms, reality and symbolism, and loss, mourning, and isolation. The views are noted to touch on only one point early in the arc of the pandemic. A significant body of personal commentary provides an understanding of the roots of themes likely to evolve as the pandemic progresses.Flexibility in the psychotherapeutic frame of treatment arises from many sources, from the general to the personal, and can take several forms. This article looks at walking while conducting psychotherapy with patients and explores the ways in which flexibility in treatment can enhance the alliance, how walking side by side brings the body into focus with its implications for transference and countertransference, and how associations to landscape evoke past memories and access emotions. Issues relating to self-disclosure and boundaries, as well as patient responses to the psychotherapist's personally driven request to consider walking during psychotherapy are addressed. Since writing this article, the coronavirus pandemic has swept across the world and required psychotherapists everywhere to bend the frame of treatment and meet with patients virtually-by phone or video conference-to maintain social distancing and prevent the spread of infection. The hardships posed by this shift in treatment frame combine with benefits not dissimilar to those found with psychotherapy while walking.The complexity, uncertainty and charged nature of climate change make it a unique stressor that is irreconcilable at an individual level. This experience of impossibility leads to splitting of reactions into polarities, or dialectics, which must be contained to reduce climate distress and held open for generative use towards climate adaptation. We present a dynamic model for addressing climate change material within psychotherapy, wherein these climate dialectics are identified, explored, and held open. Clinical vignettes* illustrate therapeutic work with the particular climate dialectics of Climate Reality-Social Reality, Individual Agency-Collective Agency, Hope-Hopelessness, Certainty-Uncertainty, and Nature as Comfort-Nature as Threat. Situations of climate anxiety, solastalgia, disavowal, and the climate dismissive patient are addressed, as is the therapeutic use of the wordlessness that accompanies our relationship with the natural world. We explore and emphasize how a focus on the containment and transformation of climate anxiety, rather than on its reduction, assists in aligning with new realities and in the reduction of distress. Use of a developmental stage metaphor, attention to climate-specific counter-transference enactments, and emphasis on authentic action are central to this process.This study examines the experiences of patients in treatment with psychodynamic psychiatrists on an intermittent basis following an initial brief period of intensive psychotherapy and stabilization. Patients with non-psychotic disorders who received intermittent treatment answered a web-based questionnaire describing the usefulness of various supportive, cognitive-behavioral, and psychodynamic interventions. Forty-eight out of 58 patients invited to participate completed the survey (83% response rate). The majority (75%) of respondents welcomed the intermittent treatment frame. Therapeutic factors deemed to be most helpful included supportive interventions such as ability to relate to the clinician, ability of clinician to listen empathically, and feeling supported by a non-judgemental therapist when talking about private matters.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/Ilginatinib-hydrochloride.html  The majority of respondents also endorsed as highly beneficial various cognitive-behavioral interventions such as understanding how thinking patterns impact behavior and feelings and discussing alternative coping skills. Also highly rated were psychodynamic interventions, including understanding how the present is modeled from past experiences and expression and regulation of affect. In the open-ended qualitative feedback, therapeutic factors including collaboration, forming an alliance, and empathic attunement emerged as important. Our preliminary findings suggest that the intermittent psychodynamic treatment frame is well received by patients. Patients welcome integration of different psychotherapeutic approaches to individualize treatment. The common factors in psychotherapy are important patient-reported therapeutic factors in the intermittent treatment approach.Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently ravaging health systems across the world. Psychiatric trainees are at risk of exposure to patients with COVID-19 given their clinical roles in emergency and inpatient psychiatric settings. This article represents a case study of group dynamics in which we reflect on our own experience as psychiatric residents at a Boston-area hospital system in the era of COVID-19 and apply Wilfred Bion's concepts of the "work group" and the "basic assumption group" processes of group operation. We assess dynamics between trainees and administrative leadership both at baseline and in the current pandemic. Since navigation through crises is more effective if group leadership recognizes and responds to basic assumption behaviors, we propose suggestions to enable health system administration to successfully lead health care organizations through periods of societal turmoil. We posit that these principles apply across settings, specialties, and provider types. In addition, we use our observations to indicate future directions for expanding Bion's theories in the contemporary context.