Molecular Analysis Confirming the Introduction of Nile Crocodiles, Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti 1768 (Crocodylidae), in Southern Florida, with an Assessment of Potential for Establishment, Spread, and Impacts.

The state of Florida, USA, has more introduced herpetofauna than any other governmental region on Earth. Four species of nonnative crocodilians have been introduced to Florida (all since 1960), one of which is established. Between 2000–2014 we field-collected three nonnative crocodilians in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and one in Hendry County, Florida. We used DNA barcoding and molecular phylogenetics to determine species identification and native range origin. Also, we described diet, movement, and growth for one crocodile. Our molecular analyses illustrated that two of the crocodiles we collected are most closely related to Nile Crocodiles (Crocodylus niloticus) from South Africa, suggesting this region as a source population. We, thus, documented the first known introduction of C. niloticus in Florida. Two, and possibly three of the introduced crocodiles shared the same haplotype, suggesting they are likely from the same introduction pathway or source. One animal was captured, measured, marked, and released, then recaptured 2 y later allowing us to calculate growth rate (40.5 cm/y) and movement. The most likely route of travel by waterway (i.e., canal) illustrates that this animal traveled at least 29 km from its original capture site. One crocodile escaped from a facility in Hendry County, Florida, and survived in 1,012 ha of semi-wild habitat for three to four years, confirming that this species can survive in southern Florida

The Story of Vermont Yankee: A Cautionary Tale of Judicial Review and Nuclear Waste

This Essay explores the puzzle of Vermont Yankee v. NRDC. Vermont Yankee stands as a definitive rejection of judicial efforts to control burgeoning informal rulemaking by adding to the procedural requirements contained in the Administrative Procedure Act. Yet judicial expansion of the APA\u27s procedural requirements has continued apace, and the Court\u27s simultaneous sanction of searching substantive scrutiny sits oddly with its excoriation of the D.C. Circuit for that court\u27s perceived procedural excesses. To understand Vermont Yankee, the Essay puts the decision in its administrative and judicial context, exploring the case law and practical dilemmas facing administrators, advocates, and judges as the case unfolded. The Essay argues Vermont Yankee is very much a creature of its time, when dramatic expansions in congressionally-mandated regulation led to multiple political and institutional struggles – between advocates and agencies, between agencies and courts, and between the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit. But the cautionary tale of Vermont Yankee has broader significance and demonstrates the challenges facing judicial review in the modern administrative state

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

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

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