Cyclones and disaster management

Disaster management needs to be a long-term, multi-sector responsibility which interacts with, and contributes significantly to, national development. It should be intimately concerned with the root causes of community vulnerability to hazards, and these root causes are inevitably the targets of development programmes. Expert knowledge gained through studies of cyclones is not only relevant to disaster management, but is an important component and crucial to its success. This article outlines some of the disaster management strategies that all of us should be trying to implement so that cyclones have less potential for harm. The article also shows the importance of cyclone related studies, in the proper context, to each of these strategies.

Livelihood vulnerability increases human–wildlife interactions

Summary Human–wildlife interactions (HWIs) occur in many rural African communities, with potential impacts on livelihood vulnerability. High livelihood vulnerability may force communities to employ strategies that increase the risk of negative HWIs, yet the extent to which HWIs drive or are driven by vulnerability is unclear. We hypothesized that more vulnerable households are more likely to be exposed to wildlife and experience negative interactions. To test this hypothesis, we calculated the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) of rural households in and around Quirimbas National Park (north-eastern Mozambique) and assessed whether there is a link between livelihood vulnerability and HWIs. We found a two-way association between LVI and HWIs, with more vulnerable households indeed taking greater risks and encountering wildlife when fetching water from rivers, whereas less vulnerable households tended not to employ strategies likely to increase wildlife encounters. We also observed that HWIs exert a strong effect on livelihood vulnerability, suggesting that HWIs should be included as an exposure factor in vulnerability assessments for rural households. We recommend that livelihood strategies and community vulnerability should be considered when designing HWI mitigation schemes and implementing conservation measures.

The Captive Maternal and Abolitionism

This keynote (article) examines political theory and organizing against anti-Blackness and police violence. It reflects on community, vulnerability and care, and political agency from the perspective of the “Captive Maternal”—a gender diverse or agender function of caretaking, protesting, movement and maroon-building and war resistance emanating from communities stalked by anti-Blackness and the legacy of 500 years of chattel slavery in the Americas.

Inequities among vulnerable communities during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout

Importance: Federal and state governments sought to prioritize vulnerable communities in the vaccine rollout through various methods of prioritization, and it is necessary to understand whether inequities exist. Objective: To assess whether vulnerable counties have achieved similar rates of coverage to non-vulnerable areas, and how vaccine acceptance varies by vulnerability. Design, Setting, and Participants: We use population-weighted univariate linear regressions to associate the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI) and its 7 constituent themes with a county-level time series of vaccine coverage and vaccine acceptance. We fit a multilevel model to understand how vulnerability within and across states associates with coverage as of May 8, 2021. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index was used as a metric for county-level vulnerability. County-level daily COVID-19 vaccination data on both first doses administered and people fully vaccinated from April 3, 2021 through May 8, 2021 were extracted from the Covid Act Now API. County-level daily COVID-19 vaccine acceptance survey data from January 6, 2021 through May 4, 2021 were obtained via the Carnegie Mellon University Delphi Group COVIDcast API. Results: Vulnerable counties have consistently lagged less vulnerable counties. As of May 8, the top third of vulnerable counties in the US had fully vaccinated 11.3% fewer people than the bottom third (30.7% vs 34.6% of adult population; linear regression, p= 2.2e-16), and 12.1% fewer initiated vaccinations (40.1% vs 45.6%; linear regression, p= 2.2e-16)). Six out of seven dimensions of vulnerability, including Healthcare System Factors and Socioeconomic Status, predicted lower coverage whereas the Population Density theme associated with higher coverage. Vulnerable counties have also consistently had a slightly lower level of vaccine acceptance, though as of May 4, 2021 this difference was observed to be only 0.7% between low- and high-vulnerability counties (high: 86.1%, low: 85.5%, p=0.027). Conclusions and Relevance: The vaccination gap between vulnerable and non-vulnerable counties is substantial and not readily explained by a difference in acceptance. Vulnerable populations continue to need additional support, and targeted interventions are necessary to achieve similar coverage in vulnerable counties compared to those less vulnerable to COVID-19.

A COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index to drive precision policy in the US

Background: In April 2020 we released the US COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI) to bring to life vulnerability to health, economic, and social impact of COVID-19 at the state, county, and census tract level. Here we describe the methodology, how vulnerability is distributed across the U.S., and assess the impact on vulnerable communities over the first year of the pandemic. Methods: The index combines 40 indicators into seven themes, drawing on both public and proprietary data. We associate timeseries of COVID-19 cases, deaths, test site access, and rental arrears with vulnerability. Results: Although overall COVID-19 vulnerability is concentrated in the South, the seven underlying themes show substantial spatial variability. As of May 13, 2021, the top-third of vulnerable counties have seen 21% more cases and 47% more deaths than the bottom-third of vulnerable counties, despite receiving 27% fewer tests (adjusted for population). Individual vulnerability themes vary over time in their relationship with mortality as the virus swept across the country. Over 20% of households in the top vulnerability tercile have fallen behind on rent. Poorer test site access for rural vulnerable populations early in the pandemic has since been alleviated. Conclusion: The CCVI captures greater risk of health and economic impact. It has enjoyed widespread use in response planning, and we share lessons learned about developing a data-driven tool in the midst of a fast-moving pandemic. The CCVI and an interactive data explorer are available at precisionforcovid.org/ccvi.