Communicating with Data: Telling the Extension Story in Credible and Actionable Ways

Effective communication requires a good message delivered through an effective channel and received by a receptive individual. When that communication is successful, the result is enhanced credibility and trust between the sender and the receiver. Telling the Extension story effectively requires both relevant, credible data to compose a clear message and appropriate communication channels to deliver the message to various audiences. This article describes the approach taken by Florida Extension to gather better statewide data to improve communication about the impact of its Extension work, primarily through the use of infographics. With credible data, and working together, Extension data analysts and communicators can enhance Extension’s reputation, trust, and support with key stakeholders

Using Facebook Advertising to Connect with Extension Audiences

There is considerable interest in using social media to reach Extension audiences. The study\u27s main objective was to assess the effectiveness of Facebook promotion and event advertising on creating new client contacts as measured by Likes. The results show the fan base for each county increased slowly prior to and following the Facebook ad, while it increased more rapidly during the advertisement period. Thus, Facebook advertising appears to be an effective tool to increase awareness of Extension Facebook pages. Extension professionals should consider investing in Facebook advertising to expand their fan base

Addendum to the Corman-Drosten Review Report

After submitting our review report on Corman et al. (referred hereinafter as CD-report) and republishing it on a scientific preprint server [50] and Researchgate.net [51] we offered the report for public discussion at cormandrostenreview.com on 27th November 2020. The scientific community provided additional literature, references, and analyses concerning the CD-report and the Corman et al. manuscript. Several “advocatus diaboli” confronted us with correct or assumed problems in our report. The most common critique of the CD-report was the lack of “wet lab” experiments to support our concerns over the technical flaws in the PCR protocol

The ROMA trial: 7 years of trial activities and the development of the ROMA trial network

INTRODUCTIONThe Randomized Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Single versus Multiple Arterial Grafts (ROMA) trial (NCT03217006) [1] is the largest randomized trial testing the hypothesis that multiple arterial grafting (MAG) provides superior clinical outcomes compared to single arterial grafting (SAG) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG).Trial activities started in January 2017, the first patient was enrolled in January 2018, and the last one (# 4375) was enrolled on 14 April 2023.Here, we summarize the first 7 years of ROMA activities, with particular focus on those aspects that may potentially be relevant for trialists interested in designing or implementing other large cardiac surgery trials. As the trial is ongoing and the primary analysis has not been performed yet, no outcomes or individual patient data are provided

The ROMA trial: 7 years of trial activities and the development of the ROMA trial network

INTRODUCTIONThe Randomized Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Single versus Multiple Arterial Grafts (ROMA) trial (NCT03217006) [1] is the largest randomized trial testing the hypothesis that multiple arterial grafting (MAG) provides superior clinical outcomes compared to single arterial grafting (SAG) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG).Trial activities started in January 2017, the first patient was enrolled in January 2018, and the last one (# 4375) was enrolled on 14 April 2023.Here, we summarize the first 7 years of ROMA activities, with particular focus on those aspects that may potentially be relevant for trialists interested in designing or implementing other large cardiac surgery trials. As the trial is ongoing and the primary analysis has not been performed yet, no outcomes or individual patient data are provided

'Working with Allies: The United States, the United Kingdom, and the War on Terror'

This article considers the special case of the United States' relationship with Great Britain—America's closest ally—in the context of the post-9/11 debate over unilateralism and multilateralism. It explains the development of unilateral preferences in the post-Cold War order and, latterly, in the foreign policies of the George W. Bush Administration. The Bush Administration's outlook is seen as much more complex than many commentators assume, notwithstanding its acceptance of the logic of unilateralism and "coalitions of the willing" in pursuing the "War on Terror." The putative "specialness" of the U.S.–U.K. relationship is examined through a skeptical eye, from both the U.S. and British perspectives. Its contemporary manifestation is placed to a considerable degree by the personal leadership style and convictions of Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. In the final part of the article, the U.S.–U.K. alliance is assessed in light of the broader debate about America's need for allies in the new international order and its capacity to "work with allies" effectively

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health