How Asymptomatic Transmission Influences Mitigation and Suppression Strategies during a Pandemic

Asymptomatic transmission complicates any public health strategies to combat a pandemic, which proved especially accurate in the case of COVID-19. Although asymptomatic cases are not unique to COVID-19, the high asymptomatic case rate raised many problems for developing effective public health interventions. The current modeling effort explored how asymptomatic transmission might impact pandemic responses in four key areas: isolation procedures, changes in reproduction rate, the potential for reduced transmission from asymptomatic cases, and social adherence to public health measures. A high rate of asymptomatic cases effectively requires large-scale public health suppression and mitigation procedures given that quarantine procedures alone could not prevent an outbreak for a virus such as SARS-CoV-2. This problem only becomes worse without lowering the effective reproduction rate, and even assuming the potential for reduced transmission, any virus with a high degree of asymptomatic transmission will likely produce a pandemic. Finally, there is a concern that asymptomatic individuals will also refuse to adhere to public health guidance. Analyses indicate that, given certain assumptions, even half of the population adhering to public health guidance could reduce the peak and flatten the curve by over 90%. Taken together, these analyses highlight the importance of taking asymptomatic cases into account when modeling viral spread and developing public health intervention strategies.     

Pessimism and optimism towards new discoveries

Theory and Decision - In this paper, we provide an axiomatic foundation of pessimism and optimism towards ambiguity that emerges due to growing awareness. In our setup, this corresponds to a...     

Risk Assessment Research: Only the Beginning

[This editorial is an essentially unedited version of testimony I presented to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (Subcommittee on Technology, Environment, and Aviation) on November 16, 1993. The hearing marked the release of an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report entitled "Researching Health Risks," for which I was part of an advisory panel (along with Curtis Travis and a dozen other experts in risk assessment). The title of my testimony foreshadowed the dual message I hoped to convey: that more research to improve risk assessment is sorely needed, but that we ought not let that need blind us to other deficiencies in risk-based decision-making that may deserve equal or greater attention.]     

The Environmental Justice Debate: A Commentary on Methodological Issues and Practical Concerns

Over the last decade, environmental sociology has produced a tremendous stream of research pertaining to environmental justice issues. In general, we now know that low income groups and communities of color are disproportionately exposed to toxic wastes. In this paper, I argue that future research requires a shift in methodological approach. Learning how groups come to be exposed to toxic wastes requires an understanding of the organizational processes that shape decisions regarding production practices and regulatory enforcement strategies. I conclude by making three claims: (1) Documenting that disempowered groups are exposed to toxic wastes more than other groups is important. Disentangling whether race or class matters more is more dubious. (2) If we want to make claims about process, we should study process and not outcomes. (3) Insofar as we have to study outcomes, we should be more aware of which outcomes we want to study and what types of inferences we are able to draw from outcomes.