Search bioRxivSearch

Biology subjects

Cunniffe, N.

Publications and source records attributed to Cunniffe, N..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

When does a minor outbreak become a major epidemic? Linking the risk from invading pathogens to practical definitions of a major epidemic

Forecasting whether or not initial reports of disease will be followed by a severe epidemic is an important component of disease management. Standard epidemic risk estimates involve assuming that infections occur according to a branching process and correspond to the probability that the outbreak persists beyond the initial stochastic phase. However, an alternative assessment is to predict whether or not initial cases will lead to a severe epidemic in which available control resources are exceeded. We show how this risk can be estimated by considering three practically relevant potential definitions of a severe epidemic; namely, an outbreak in which: i) a large number of hosts are infected simultaneously; ii) a large total number of infections occur; and iii) the pathogen remains in the population for a long period. We show that the probability of a severe epidemic under these definitions often coincides with the standard branching process estimate for the major epidemic probability. However, these practically relevant risk assessments can also be different from the major epidemic probability, as well as from each other. This holds in different epidemiological systems, highlighting that careful consideration of what constitutes a severe epidemic in an ongoing outbreak is vital for accurate risk quantification.

ecology

Accurate forecasts of the effectiveness of interventions against Ebola may require models that account for variations in symptoms during infection

Epidemiological models are routinely used to predict the effects of interventions aimed at reducing the impacts of Ebola epidemics. Most models of interventions targeting symptomatic hosts, such as isolation or treatment, assume that all symptomatic hosts are equally likely to be detected. In other words, following an incubation period, the level of symptoms displayed by an individual host is assumed to remain constant throughout an infection. In reality, however, symptoms vary between different stages of infection. During an Ebola infection, individuals progress from initial non-specific symptoms through to more severe phases of infection. Here we compare predictions of a model in which a constant symptoms level is assumed to those generated by a more epidemiologically realistic model that accounts for varying symptoms during infection. Both models can reproduce observed epidemic data, as we show by fitting the models to data from the ongoing epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the 2014-16 epidemic in Liberia. However, for both of these epidemics, when interventions are altered identically in the models with and without levels of symptoms that depend on the time since first infection, predictions from the models differ. Our work highlights the need to consider whether or not varying symptoms should be accounted for in models used by decision makers to assess the likely efficacy of Ebola interventions.

epidemiology