The impact of resources for clinical surveillance on the control of a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Denmark.
The objectives of this study were to assess whether current surveillance capacity is sufficient to fulfill EU and Danish regulations to control a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) epidemic in Denmark, and whether enlarging the protection and/or surveillance zones could minimize economic loss...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2014
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/c65ed70d0c304fb6afec3dbee2684f0e |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The objectives of this study were to assess whether current surveillance capacity is sufficient to fulfill EU and Danish regulations to control a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) epidemic in Denmark, and whether enlarging the protection and/or surveillance zones could minimize economic losses. The stochastic spatial simulation model DTU-DADS was further developed to simulate clinical surveillance of herds within the protection and surveillance zones and used to model spread of FMD between herds. A queuing system was included in the model, and based on daily surveillance capacity, which was 450 herds per day, it was decided whether herds appointed for surveillance would be surveyed on the current day or added to the queue. The model was run with a basic scenario representing the EU and Danish regulations, which includes a 3 km protection and 10 km surveillance zone around detected herds. In alternative scenarios, the protection zone was enlarged to 5 km, the surveillance zone was enlarged to 15 or 20 km, or a combined enlargement of the protection and surveillance zones was modelled. Sensitivity analysis included changing surveillance capacity to 200, 350 or 600 herds per day, frequency of repeated visits for herds in overlapping surveillance zones from every 14 days to every 7, 21 and 30 days, and the size of the zones combined with a surveillance capacity increased to 600 herds per day. The results showed that the default surveillance capacity is sufficient to survey herds on time. Extra resources for surveillance did not improve the situation, but fewer resources could result in larger epidemics and costs. Enlarging the protection zone was a better strategy than the basic scenario. Despite that enlarging the surveillance zone might result in shorter epidemic duration, and lower number of affected herds, it resulted frequently in larger economic losses. |
|---|