The forecasting of dynamical Ross River virus outbreaks: Victoria, Australia

Ross River virus (RRV) is Australia’s most epidemiologically important mosquito-borne disease.During RRV epidemics in the State of Victoria (such as 2010/11 and 2016/17) notifications canaccount for up to 30% of national RRV notifications. However, little is known about factors which canforecast RRV transmission in Victoria. We aimed to understand factors associated with RRVtransmission in epidemiologically important regions of Victoria and establish an early warningforecast system. We developed negative binomial regression models to forecast human RRVnotifications across 11 Local Government Areas (LGAs) using climatic, environmental, andoceanographic variables. Data were collected from July 2008 to June 2018. Data from July 2008 toJune 2012 were used as a training data set, while July 2012 to June 2018 were used as a testing dataset. Evapotranspiration and precipitation were found to be common factors for forecasting RRVnotifications across sites. Several site-specific factors were also important in forecasting RRVnotifications which varied between LGA. From the 11 LGAs examined, nine experienced an outbreakin 2011/12 of which the models for these sites were a good fit. All 11 LGAs experienced an outbreakin 2016/17, however only six LGAs could predict the outbreak using the same model. We documentsimilarities and differences in factors useful for forecasting RRV notifications across Victoria anddemonstrate that readily available and inexpensive climate and environmental data can be used to predict epidemic periods in some areas. Furthermore, we highlight in certain regions the complexityof RRV transmission where additional epidemiological information is needed to accurately predictRRV activity. Our findings have been applied to produce a Ross River virus Outbreak SurveillanceSystem (ROSS) to aid in public health decision making in Victoria

Vitamin C and the common cold: a retrospective analysis of Chalmers’ review.

In 1975 Thomas Chalmers analyzed the possible effect of vitamin C on the common cold by calculating the average difference in the duration of cold episodes in vitamin C and control groups in seven placebo-controlled studies. He found that episodes were 0.11 +/- 0.24 (SE) days shorter in the vitamin C groups and concluded that there was no valid evidence to indicate that vitamin C is beneficial in the treatment of the common cold. Chalmers' review has been extensively cited in scientific articles and monographs. However, other reviewers have concluded that vitamin C significantly alleviates the symptoms of the common cold. A careful analysis of Chalmers' review reveals serious shortcomings. For example, Chalmers did not consider the amount of vitamin C used in the studies and included in his meta-analysis was a study in which only 0.025-0.05 g/day of vitamin C was administered to the test subjects. For some studies Chalmers used values that are inconsistent with the original published results. Using data from the same studies, we calculated that vitamin C (1-6 g/day) decreased the duration of the cold episodes by 0.93 +/- 0.22 (SE) days; the relative decrease in the episode duration was 21%. The current notion that vitamin C has no effect on the common cold seems to be based in large part on a faulty review written two decades ago