Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.07.23.453524

US Dog Importations during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Do we have an erupting problem?

Abstract

Dog importation data from 2018-2020 were evaluated to ascertain whether the dog importation patterns in the United States changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically with regard to denial of entry. Dog denial of entry reports from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020, stored within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Quarantine Activity Reporting System, were reviewed. Basic descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Reason for denial, country of origin, and month of importation were all examined to determine which countries of origin resulted in the largest number of denials, and whether there was a seasonal change in importations during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), compared to previous years (2018 and 2019). During 2020, CDC denied entry to 458 dogs. This represents a 52% increase in dogs denied entry compared to the averages in 2018 and 2019. Dogs were primarily denied entry for falsified rabies vaccination certificates (56%). Three countries exported 74% of all dogs denied entry into the United States, suggesting that targeted interventions may be needed for certain countries. Increased attempts to import inadequately vaccinated dogs from countries with canine rabies in 2020 may have been due to the increased demand for domestic pets during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational messaging should highlight the risk of rabies and the importance of making informed pet purchases from foreign entities to protect pet owners, their families, and the public.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Pieracci, E. G., Williams, C., Wallace, R. M., Kalapura, C., Brown, C. M.. 2021-07-23. US Dog Importations during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Do we have an erupting problem?. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.23.453524

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

Children's Species Literacy as Estimated and Desired by Biodiversity Communicators: a Mismatch with the Actual Level

While biodiversity decline continues and laypeoples knowledge about species is limited, especially in children, high-quality communication is needed to raise awareness. For this, communicators should be aware of current knowledge levels in their target groups. We compared biodiversity communicators' estimates of the average species literacy level in primary school children with the actual level. Moreover, we explored the importance that communicators placed on species literacy and the level that they desired. Estimations of childrens average knowledge level varied widely and differed from the actual level. In particular, communicators overestimated the species literacy level. Although most biodiversity communicators agreed that knowledge about species is important, their view differed as to why species literacy would be important. Moreover, communicators differed with respect to the relative importance attached to different knowledge components. Professionals may thus benefit from a detailed framework of species literacy that illustrates different aspects and values. Most importantly, our findings suggest that to bridge the gap between actual and desired knowledge levels in children effectively, biodiversity communicators first need to become more aware of current perceptions in young audiences.

scientific communication and education↗

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

Editorial decision-making is a fundamental element of the scientific enterprise. We examined whether contributions to editorial decisions at various stages of the publication process is subject to gender disparity, based on analytics collected by the biomedical researcher-led journal eLife. Despite efforts to increase women representation, the board of reviewing editors (BRE) was men-dominant (69%). Moreover, authors suggested more men from the BRE pool, even after correcting for mens numerical over-representation. Although women editors were proportionally involved in the initial editorial process, they were under-engaged in editorial activities involving reviewers and authors. Additionally, converging evidence showed gender homophily in manuscripts assignment, such that men Senior Editors over-engaged men Reviewing Editors. This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias.

scientific communication and education↗