Geology topics

David Pannell

Publications and source records attributed to David Pannell.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Multiple models for outbreak decision support in the face of uncertainty

Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high; the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020.

PNAS↗

USGS2021

Uranium(VI) attenuation in a carbonate-bearing oxic alluvial aquifer

Uranium minerals are commonly found in soils and sediment across the United States at an average concentration of 2–4 mg/kg. Uranium occurs in the environment primarily in two forms, the oxidized, mostly soluble uranium(VI) form, or the reduced, sparingly soluble reduced uranium(IV) form. Here we describe subsurface geochemical conditions that result in low uranium concentrations in an alluvial aquifer with naturally occurring uranium in soils and sediments in the presence of complexing ligands under oxidizing conditions. Groundwater was saturated with respect to calcite and contained calcium (78–90 mg/L) with elevated levels of carbonate alkalinity (291–416 mg/L as HCO 3 − ). X-ray adsorption near edge structure (XANES) spectroscopy identified that sediment-associated uranium was oxidized as a uranium(VI) form (85%). Calcite was the predominant mineral by mass in the ultrafine fraction in uranium-bearing sediments (>16 mg/kg). Groundwater geochemical modeling indicated calcite and/or a calcium-uranyl-carbonate mineral such as liebigite in equilibrium with groundwater. The δ 13 C (0.57‰ ± 0.15‰) was indicative of abiotic carbonate deposition. Thus, solid-phase uranium(VI) associated with carbonate is likely maintaining uranium(VI) groundwater levels below the maximum contaminant level (MCL; 30 µg/L), presenting a deposition mechanism for uranium attenuation rather than solely a means of mobilization.

Nebraska↗

USGS2020

Harnessing multiple models for outbreak management

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered efforts by multiple modeling groups to forecast disease trajectory, assess interventions, and improve understanding of the pathogen. Such models can often differ substantially in their projections and recommendations, reflecting different policy assumptions and objectives, as well as scientific, logistical, and other uncertainty about biological and management processes (1). Disparate predictions during any outbreak can hinder intervention planning and response by policy-makers (2, 3), who may instead choose to rely on single trusted sources of advice, or on consensus where it appears. Thus, valuable insights and information from other models may be overlooked, limiting the opportunity for decision-makers to account for risk and uncertainty and resulting in more lives lost or resources used than necessary. We advocate a more systematic approach, by merging two well-established research fields. The first element involves formal expert elicitation methods applied to multiple models to deliberately generate, retain, and synthesize valuable individual model ideas and share important insights during group discussions, while minimizing various cognitive biases. The second element uses a decision-theoretic framework to capture and account for within- and between-model uncertainty as we evaluate actions in a timely manner to achieve management objectives.

Science↗

USGS2019

Concurrent assessment of epidemiological and operational uncertainties for optimal outbreak control: Ebola as a case study

Determining how to best manage an epidemiological outbreak may be hindered by both epidemiological uncertainty (i.e. about epidemiological processes) and operational uncertainty (i.e. about the effectiveness of candidate interventions). These two uncertainties are rarely addressed concurrently in epidemic studies, impeding decision-making. We present an approach to simultaneously address both sources of uncertainty. Epidemiological uncertainty is represented by a large ensemble of models of the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak. Operational uncertainty about the effectiveness of three classes of intervention is assessed for a wide range of potential effectiveness for each intervention. We ranked each intervention in terms of caseload reduction in each model, initially assuming an unlimited budget. To explore the role of budget limitation, we assessed the influence of three candidate cost functions relating intervention effectiveness and cost for different budget levels. The Value of Information (VoI) to resolve uncertainty is generally high in this study; appropriate information gain could reduce expected caseload by more than 50%. The ranking of interventions is jointly determined by the underlying epidemiological process, the effectiveness of the interventions and the size of the budget available for the program. An epidemiologically effective intervention might not be optimal if its costs outweigh its epidemiological benefit. Under higher budget conditions, resolution of epidemiological uncertainty is most valuable. When budgets are tight, however, operational and epidemiological uncertainty are equally important. Overall, our study demonstrates that significant public health improvements could result from a careful examination of both epidemiological and operational uncertainties within the same modelling structure. This approach can be applied to decision-making for management of other diseases for which multiple models and multiple interventions are available.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B↗