Formation and Lifespans of Emergent Recovery Groups in Post-Katrina New Orleans

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, numerous groups emerged to address recovery related needs in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. The phenomenon of emergent groups is widely noted in the disaster literature, but there has been little empirical research focusing on these groups. And, the existing literature discusses emergent groups primarily in the context of response. This study sought to explore the factors related to formation of emergent recovery groups (ERGs) and allow ERGs to have an extended lifespan. Data was gathered through in-depth interviews with founders of twenty ERGs that formed to work in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. It was found that the factors related to group formation were the same factors that contributed to the continued existence of the ERG including post-event community situational context, unmet needs, a group driver/leader, ability to network, level of integration, and resources

A Foundation for Factors that Explain Volunteer Engagement in Response and Recovery: The Case of Flooding in East Texas 2016

Volunteers are important contributors to response and recovery. Little is known about their engagement, particularly in terms of comparing the engagement of response volunteers to recovery volunteers. This study sought to explore volunteer engagement in response and recovery in the case of flooding experienced by a number of communities in East Texas following flooding in 2016. Data was gathered through interviews with 72 response and recovery volunteers and key informants, an analysis of key documents, and first-hand observations. This study developed a list of factors that were found to explain volunteer engagement in East Texas and factors suggested by the literature. These factors should be systematically tested in the future to expand our understanding of volunteer engagement.University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center (Grant

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funding allocations and relevance for US disaster policy

The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program has long been a cornerstone of state and local emergency management preparedness efforts. Through the EMPG program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers grants to state and local emergency management agencies to accomplish a wide range of tasks such as the development of response and recovery plans, the creation of emergency operation centers, and the hiring of staff, among other activities required to be effective. EMPG provides the predominant federal funding for this mission, and many agencies depend on these funds for their operations. Despite the importance of EMPG, there is a dearth of empirical research about the program. This study explores this gap by evaluating how EMPG funds were distributed across United States counties from 2014 to 2020. Using FEMA and US Census data, we conducted a county-level analysis using robust regression statistical analysis to determine factors affecting funding awards. Findings indicate that high population, high diversity, a strong economy, and high risk (measured using both the National Risk Index score and the number of federal disaster declarations per county) increased the likelihood that a county would receive EMPG funds, with high-risk urban counties rather than rural counties receiving more funding

The impact of body composition parameters on ipilimumab toxicity and survival in patients with metastatic melanoma

Background: Body composition is an important predictor of drug toxicity and outcome. Ipilimumab (Ipi), a monoclonal antibody used to treat metastatic melanoma, has specific toxicities. No validated biomarkers that predict Ipi toxicity and efficacy exist. Also, the impact of Ipi on body composition has not been established. Methods: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with Ipi between 2009 and 2015 were included. Body composition was assessed by computed tomography at baseline and after four cycles of Ipi. Sarcopenia and low muscle attenuation (MA) were defined using published cut-points. All adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs (irAEs) were recorded (Common Terminology Criteria For Adverse Event V.4.0). Results: Eighty-four patients were included in this study (62% male, median age 54 years). At baseline, 24% were sarcopenic and 33% had low MA. On multivariate analysis, sarcopenia and low MA were significantly associated with high-grade AEs (OR = 5.34, 95% CI: 1.15- 24.88, P = 0.033; OR = 5.23, 95% CI: 1.41-19.30, P = 0.013, respectively), and low MA was associated with high-grade irAEs (OR = 3.57, 95% CI: 1.09-11.77, P = 0.036). Longitudinal analysis (n = 59) revealed significant reductions in skeletal muscle area (SMA), total body fat-free mass, fat mass (all P<0.001) and MA (P = 0.030). Mean reduction in SMA was 3.3%/ 100 days (95% CI: - 4.48 to - 1.79%, P<0.001). A loss of SMA >= 7.5%/ 100 days (highest quartile) was a significant predictor of overall survival in multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.02-4.56, P = 0.046). Conclusions: Patients with sarcopenia and low MA are more likely to experience severe treatment-related toxicity to Ipi. Loss of muscle during treatment was predictive of worse survival. Treatments to increase muscle mass and influence outcome warrant further investigation

Coronal Heating as Determined by the Solar Flare Frequency Distribution Obtained by Aggregating Case Studies

Flare frequency distributions represent a key approach to addressing one of the largest problems in solar and stellar physics: determining the mechanism that counter-intuitively heats coronae to temperatures that are orders of magnitude hotter than the corresponding photospheres. It is widely accepted that the magnetic field is responsible for the heating, but there are two competing mechanisms that could explain it: nanoflares or Alfv\'en waves. To date, neither can be directly observed. Nanoflares are, by definition, extremely small, but their aggregate energy release could represent a substantial heating mechanism, presuming they are sufficiently abundant. One way to test this presumption is via the flare frequency distribution, which describes how often flares of various energies occur. If the slope of the power law fitting the flare frequency distribution is above a critical threshold, $\alpha=2$ as established in prior literature, then there should be a sufficient abundance of nanoflares to explain coronal heating. We performed $>$600 case studies of solar flares, made possible by an unprecedented number of data analysts via three semesters of an undergraduate physics laboratory course. This allowed us to include two crucial, but nontrivial, analysis methods: pre-flare baseline subtraction and computation of the flare energy, which requires determining flare start and stop times. We aggregated the results of these analyses into a statistical study to determine that $\alpha = 1.63 \pm 0.03$. This is below the critical threshold, suggesting that Alfv\'en waves are an important driver of coronal heating.Comment: 1,002 authors, 14 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables, published by The Astrophysical Journal on 2023-05-09, volume 948, page 7

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