Communicating Probability Information in Hurricane Forecasts: Assessing Statements that Forecasters Use on Social Media and Implications for Public Assessments of Reliability

Forecasters are responsible for predicting the weather and communicating risk with stakeholders and members of the public. This study investigates the statements that forecasters use to communicate probability information in hurricane forecasts and the impact these statements may have on how members of the public evaluate forecast reliability. We use messages on Twitter to descriptively analyze probability statements in forecasts leading up to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Florence from forecasters in three different groups: the National Hurricane Center, local Weather Forecast Offices, and in the television broadcast community. We then use data from a representative survey of United States adults to assess how members of the public wish to receive probability information and the impact of information format on assessments of forecast reliability. Results from the descriptive analysis indicate forecasters overwhelmingly use words and phrases in place of numbers to communicate probability information. In addition, the words and phrases forecasters use are generally vague in nature -- they seldom include rank adjectives (e.g., “low” or “high”) to qualify blanket expressions of uncertainty (e.g., “there is a chance of flooding”). Results from the survey show members of the public generally prefer both words/phrases and numbers when receiving forecast information. They also show information format affects public judgments of forecast reliability; on average, people believe forecasts are more reliable when they include numeric probability information.

Principles of outbreak investigation

Outbreak investigation is an essential function of public health professionals. It is an opportunity to gain new knowledge of diseases and to discover the weaknesses of current public health practices and systems. Unfortunately, most outbreaks are not investigated. This chapter will present the principles and important points about outbreak investigation. The reader will learn about how to detect outbreaks from routine official surveillance and unofficial sources. The reader can assume oneself as an investigator who has to organize the team, review previous knowledge, and prepare the technical and management aspects, before starting the investigation. The reader will learn about the major ten steps in the investigation, with examples, which starts by confirming the existence of the outbreak, verifying the diagnosis, gathering case information, descriptive epidemiology, formulating and testing the hypothesis when necessary, conducting environmental surveys to supplement epidemiological evidence, providing timely on-site reporting of the findings, with practical recommendations to local and national responsible authorities, and communicating risk to health professional community and public. The reader is reminded about the need to follow-up on the recommendations and continue vigorous surveillance of the health problem. The chapter ends by forecasting more joint international investigations to control emerging diseases and new problems. After reading this chapter, the reader should be clear that outbreak investigation is an interesting, challenging, and important task requiring a competent investigator who combines sound scientific knowledge and good management.

Four Ways to Improve Risk Reporting

Risk reporting is often unconnected with business strategy and performance, and is considered merely as a matter of compliance, which defeats the purpose of risk management. This article describes four best practices of companies that have improved their risk reporting by strengthening the vertical and horizontal communication of risks, reporting near misses, and communicating risk digitally through apps. Better risk reporting involves simplification and incentivization. It enables organizations to improve risk management and risk culture overall.

Estimating Exposure Risk to Guide Behaviour During the SARS-COV2 Pandemic

The end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021 was a challenging time for many countries in Europe, as the combination of colder weather, holiday celebrations, and the emergence of more transmissible virus variants conspired to create a perfect storm for virus transmission across the continent. At the same time lockdowns appeared to be less effective than they were earlier in the pandemic. In this paper we argue that one contributing factor is that existing ways of communicating risk—case numbers, test positivity rates, hospitalisations etc.—are difficult for individuals to translate into a level of personal risk, thereby limiting the ability of individuals to properly calibrate their own behaviour. We propose an new more direct measure of personal risk, exposure risk, to estimate the likelihood that an individual will come into contact with an infected person, and we argue that it can play an important role, alongside more conventional statistics, to help translate complex epidemiological data into a simple measure to guide pandemic behaviour. We describe how exposure risk can be calculated using existing data and infection prediction models, and use it to evaluate and compare the exposure risk associated with 39 European countries.