首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Disease Risk Mitigation: The Equivalence of Two Selective Mixing Strategies on Aggregate Contact Patterns Resulting Epidemic Spread
【2h】

Disease Risk Mitigation: The Equivalence of Two Selective Mixing Strategies on Aggregate Contact Patterns Resulting Epidemic Spread

机译:缓解疾病风险:两种选择性混合策略在总体接触方式和所导致的流行扩散上的等效性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The personal choices affecting the transmission of infectious diseases include the number of contacts an individual makes, and the risk-characteristics of those contacts. We consider whether these different choices have distinct implications for the course of an epidemic. We also consider whether choosing contact mitigation (how much to mix) and affinity mitigation (with whom to mix) strategies together has different epidemiological effects than choosing each separately. We use a set of differential equation compartmental models of the spread of disease, coupled with a model of selective mixing. We assess the consequences of varying contact or affinity mitigation as a response to disease risk. We do this by comparing disease incidence and dynamics under varying contact volume, contact type, and both combined across several different disease models. Specifically, we construct a change of variables that allows one to transition from contact mitigation to affinity mitigation, and vice versa. In the absence of asymptomatic infection we find no difference in the epidemiological impacts of the two forms of disease risk mitigation. Furthermore, since models that include both mitigation strategies are under-determined, varying both results in no outcome that could not be reached by choosing either separately. Which strategy is actually chosen then depends not on their epidemiological consequences, but on the relative cost of reducing contact volume versus altering contact type. Although there is no fundamental epidemiological difference between the two forms of mitigation, the social cost of alternative strategies can be very different. From a social perspective, therefore, whether one strategy should be promoted over another depends on economic not epidemiological factors.
机译:影响传染病传播的个人选择包括个人进行联系的次数以及这些联系的风险特征。我们考虑这些不同的选择是否会对流行病的进程产生不同的影响。我们还考虑与单独选择接触缓解策略(混合多少)和减少亲和力缓解策略(与谁混合)相比是否具有不同的流行病学影响。我们使用一组疾病传播的微分方程隔室模型,以及选择性混合模型。我们评估改变接触或亲和力缓解对疾病风险的反应的后果。我们通过比较不同接触量,接触类型以及在多种不同疾病模型中两者的组合下的疾病发病率和动态来进行此操作。具体而言,我们构建了一个变量更改,该变量允许从接触缓解过渡到亲和缓解,反之亦然。在没有无症状感染的情况下,我们发现两种形式的疾病风险缓解的流行病学影响没有差异。此外,由于同时确定了包括这两种缓解策略的模型,因此两种方法的变化都不会导致无法通过单独选择任何一种方法来达到预期结果。那么,实际上选择哪种策略并不取决于其流行病学后果,而是取决于减少联系数量与改变联系类型的相对成本。尽管两种缓解方式在流行病学上没有根本的区别,但替代策略的社会成本却可能大不相同。因此,从社会的角度来看,是否应将一种策略推广到另一种策略取决于经济而非流行病学因素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号