| Summary: | Since the emergence of influenza A/H1N1 pandemic virus in March-April 2009, very stringent interventions including Fengxiao were implemented to prevent importation of infected cases and decelerate the disease spread in mainland China. The extent to which these measures have been effective remains elusive. We sought to investigate the effectiveness of Fengxiao that may inform policy decisions on improving community-based interventions for management of on-going outbreaks in China, in particular during the Spring Festival in mid-February 2010 when nationwide traveling will be substantially increased. We obtained data on initial laboratory-confirmed cases of H1N1 in the province of Shaanxi and used Markov-chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) simulations to estimate the reproduction number. Given the estimates for the exposed and infectious periods of the novel H1N1 virus, we estimated a mean reproduction number of 1.68 (95% CI 1.45-1.92) and other A/H1N1 epidemiological parameters. Our results based on a spatially stratified population dynamical model show that the early implementation of Fengxiao can delay the epidemic peak significantly and prevent the disease spread to the general population but may also, if not implemented appropriately, cause more severe outbreak within universities/colleges, while late implementation of Fengxiao can achieve nothing more than no implementation. Strengthening local control strategies (quarantine and hygiene precaution) is much more effective in mitigating outbreaks and inhibiting the successive waves than implementing Fengxiao. Either strong mobility or high transport-related transmission rate during the Spring Festival holiday will not reverse the ongoing outbreak, but both will result in a large new wave. The findings suggest that Fengxiao and travel precautions should not be relaxed unless strict measures of quarantine, isolation, and hygiene precaution practices are put in place. Integration and prompt implementation of these interventions can significantly reduce the overall attack rate of pandemic outbreaks.
|
|---|
