Simulation suggests that rapid activation of social distancing can arrest epidemic development due to a novel strain of influenza
Open Access
- 29 April 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Public Health
- Vol. 9 (1) , 117
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-117
Abstract
Background: Social distancing interventions such as school closure and prohibition of public gatherings are present in pandemic influenza preparedness plans. Predicting the effectiveness of intervention strategies in a pandemic is difficult. In the absence of other evidence, computer simulation can be used to help policy makers plan for a potential future influenza pandemic. We conducted simulations of a small community to determine the magnitude and timing of activation that would be necessary for social distancing interventions to arrest a future pandemic. Methods: We used a detailed, individual-based model of a real community with a population of approximately 30,000. We simulated the effect of four social distancing interventions: school closure, increased isolation of symptomatic individuals in their household, workplace nonattendance, and reduction of contact in the wider community. We simulated each of the intervention measures in isolation and in several combinations; and examined the effect of delays in the activation of interventions on the final and daily attack rates. Results: For an epidemic with an R0 value of 1.5, a combination of all four social distancing measures could reduce the final attack rate from 33% to below 10% if introduced within 6 weeks from the introduction of the first case. In contrast, for an R0 of 2.5 these measures must be introduced within 2 weeks of the first case to achieve a similar reduction; delays of 2, 3 and 4 weeks resulted in final attack rates of 7%, 21% and 45% respectively. For an R0 of 3.5 the combination of all four measures could reduce the final attack rate from 73% to 16%, but only if introduced without delay; delays of 1, 2 or 3 weeks resulted in final attack rates of 19%, 35% or 63% respectively. For the higher R0 values no single measure has a significant impact on attack rates. Conclusion: Our results suggest a critical role of social distancing in the potential control of a future pandemic and indicate that such interventions are capable of arresting influenza epidemic development, but only if they are used in combination, activated without delay and maintained for a relatively long period.This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Small Community Model for the Transmission of Infectious Diseases: Comparison of School Closure as an Intervention in Individual-Based Models of an Influenza PandemicPLOS ONE, 2008
- Effective, Robust Design of Community Mitigation for Pandemic Influenza: A Systematic Examination of Proposed US GuidancePLOS ONE, 2008
- Quantifying social distancing arising from pandemic influenzaJournal of The Royal Society Interface, 2007
- Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence baseBMC Public Health, 2007
- The effect of public health measures on the 1918 influenza pandemic in U.S. citiesProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2007
- Antiviral Resistance and the Control of Pandemic InfluenzaPLoS Medicine, 2007
- Modeling the Worldwide Spread of Pandemic Influenza: Baseline Case and Containment InterventionsPLoS Medicine, 2007
- Unacceptably High Mortality Related to Measles Epidemics in Niger, Nigeria, and ChadPLoS Medicine, 2007
- Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemicNature, 2006
- Mitigation strategies for pandemic influenza in the United StatesProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006