[1] A model is proposed for optimizing the net benefits of removing multiple dams in U.S. watersheds of Lake Erie by quantifying impacts upon social, ecological, and economic objectives of importance to managers and stakeholders. Explicit consideration is given to the linkages between newly accessible tributary habitat and the lake's ecosystem. The model is a mixed integer linear program (MILP) that selects a portfolio of potential dam removals that could achieve the best possible value of a weighted sum of the objective(s), while still satisfying the constraints. Using response functions extracted from the Lake Erie Ecological Model and an empirical cost model, the MILP accounts for ecological and economic effects of habitat changes for both desirable native walleye and undesirable sea lamprey. The solutions show the effect on removal decisions of alternative prioritizations among cost and environmental objectives and the resulting trade-offs among those objectives. The MILP can be used as a screening model to identify portfolios of dam removals that are potentially cost-effective enhancements of habitat and the Lake Erie ecosystem; subsequent site-specific studies would be needed prior to actually removing dams.
Within stream restoration practice there has been little use of formal decision analysis methods for evaluating tradeoffs in selecting restoration sites and design alternatives. Restoration planning suffers from poorly defined objectives, confusion of objectives and means, and a lack of consideration of tradeoffs. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have the potential to improve restoration decision making by quantifying non-economic objectives, communicating tradeoffs, facilitating consistent and explicit valuation, and focusing negotiation on ultimate objectives. To explore the potential usefulness of MCDA, we first review restoration practices and define the characteristics of projects that are good candidates for MCDA. We also present two case studies. The first study is a prioritization of stream reaches for restoration that illustrates how value judgments can affect such decisions. The second study addresses the proposed removal of the Ballville Dam on the Sandusky River in Ohio.123 388 H. J. Corsair et al.An important challenge in the dam removal decision is the linking of habitat improvements to changes in species populations and ecological services that people value. The analysis shows how MCDA can assist decision making by clarifying tradeoffs, in this case by showing that the key issues are conflicts among ecological criteria-not all of which are improved by restoration.
ImportanceData on the epidemiology of mild to moderately severe COVID-19 are needed to inform public health guidance.ObjectiveTo evaluate associations between 2 or 3 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and attenuation of symptoms and viral RNA load across SARS-CoV-2 viral lineages.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA prospective cohort study of essential and frontline workers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Utah with COVID-19 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction testing and lineage classified by whole genome sequencing of specimens self-collected weekly and at COVID-19 illness symptom onset. This analysis was conducted among 1199 participants with SARS-CoV-2 from December 14, 2020, to April 19, 2022, with follow-up until May 9, 2022, reported.ExposuresSARS-CoV-2 lineage (origin strain, Delta variant, Omicron variant) and COVID-19 vaccination status.Main Outcomes and MeasuresClinical outcomes included presence of symptoms, specific symptoms (including fever or chills), illness duration, and medical care seeking. Virologic outcomes included viral load by quantitative reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction testing along with viral viability.ResultsAmong 1199 participants with COVID-19 infection (714 [59.5%] women; median age, 41 years), 14.0% were infected with the origin strain, 24.0% with the Delta variant, and 62.0% with the Omicron variant. Participants vaccinated with the second vaccine dose 14 to 149 days before Delta infection were significantly less likely to be symptomatic compared with unvaccinated participants (21/27 [77.8%] vs 74/77 [96.1%]; OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0-0.6]) and, when symptomatic, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (5/13 [38.5%] vs 62/73 [84.9%]; OR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.0-0.3]) and reported significantly fewer days of symptoms (10.2 vs 16.4; difference, −6.1 [95% CI, −11.8 to −0.4] days). Among those with Omicron infection, the risk of symptomatic infection did not differ significantly for the 2-dose vaccination status vs unvaccinated status and was significantly higher for the 3-dose recipients vs those who were unvaccinated (327/370 [88.4%] vs 85/107 [79.4%]; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]). Among symptomatic Omicron infections, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection compared with those who were unvaccinated were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (160/311 [51.5%] vs 64/81 [79.0%]; OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.1-0.5]) or seek medical care (45/308 [14.6%] vs 20/81 [24.7%]; OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). Participants with Delta and Omicron infections who received the second dose 14 to 149 days before infection had a significantly lower mean viral load compared with unvaccinated participants (3 vs 4.1 log10 copies/μL; difference, −1.0 [95% CI, −1.7 to −0.2] for Delta and 2.8 vs 3.5 log10 copies/μL, difference, −1.0 [95% CI, −1.7 to −0.3] for Omicron).Conclusions and RelevanceIn a cohort of US essential and frontline workers with SARS-CoV-2 infections, recent vaccination with 2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses less than 150 days before infection with Delta or Omicron variants, compared with being unvaccinated, was associated with attenuated symptoms, duration of illness, medical care seeking, or viral load for some comparisons, although the precision and statistical significance of specific estimates varied.
Background Three doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines produce robust antibody responses, but data are limited among individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. From a cohort of health care personnel (75.5%), first responders (4.6%), and other frontline workers (19.8%) in 6 US states, we longitudinally assessed antibody waning after dose-2, and response to dose-3, according to SARS-CoV-2 infection history. Methods Participants submitted sera every three months, after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and after each COVID-19 vaccine dose. Sera were tested for antibodies and reported quantitatively as area under the serial dilution curve (AUC). Changes in the AUC values over time were compared as fold-changes using a linear mixed model. Results Analysis included 388 participants who received dose-3 by November 2021. Three comparison groups: (1) vaccine only with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 224); (2) infection prior to dose-1 (n = 123); and (3) infection after dose 2 and before dose-3 (n = 41). The interval from dose 2 and dose 3 was approximately 8-months. After dose-3, antibody levels rose 2.5-fold (95%CI = 2.2-3.0) in group 2, and 2.9-fold (95%CI = 2.6-3.3) in group 1. Those infected within 90 days before dose-3 (and median 233 days (IQR = 213-246) after dose-2) did not increase significantly after dose-3. Conclusions A third dose of mRNA vaccine typically elicited a robust humoral immune response among those with primary vaccination regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection >3 months prior to boosting. Those with infection < 3 months prior to boosting did not have a significant increase in antibody concentrations in response to a booster.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.