The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk

Abstract In the early stages of an outbreak, the term ‘pandemic’ can be used to communicate about infectious disease risk, particularly by those who wish to encourage a large-scale public health response. However, the term lacks a widely accepted quantitative definition. We show that, under alternat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Benjamin J. Singer, Robin N. Thompson, Michael B. Bonsall
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Publishing Group 2021-01-01
Series:Scientific Reports
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
id doaj-85b84d4f6f1f4455bbdc12a6fbe65fdc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-85b84d4f6f1f4455bbdc12a6fbe65fdc2021-01-31T16:22:33ZengNature Publishing GroupScientific Reports2045-23222021-01-0111111310.1038/s41598-021-81814-3The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak riskBenjamin J. Singer0Robin N. Thompson1Michael B. Bonsall2Department of Zoology, University of OxfordChrist Church, University of OxfordDepartment of Zoology, University of OxfordAbstract In the early stages of an outbreak, the term ‘pandemic’ can be used to communicate about infectious disease risk, particularly by those who wish to encourage a large-scale public health response. However, the term lacks a widely accepted quantitative definition. We show that, under alternate quantitative definitions of ‘pandemic’, an epidemiological metapopulation model produces different estimates of the probability of a pandemic. Critically, we show that using different definitions alters the projected effects of key parameters—such as inter-regional travel rates, degree of pre-existing immunity, and heterogeneity in transmission rates between regions—on the risk of a pandemic. Our analysis provides a foundation for understanding the scientific importance of precise language when discussing pandemic risk, illustrating how alternative definitions affect the conclusions of modelling studies. This serves to highlight that those working on pandemic preparedness must remain alert to the variability in the use of the term ‘pandemic’, and provide specific quantitative definitions when undertaking one of the types of analysis that we show to be sensitive to the pandemic definition.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Benjamin J. Singer
Robin N. Thompson
Michael B. Bonsall
spellingShingle Benjamin J. Singer
Robin N. Thompson
Michael B. Bonsall
The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk
Scientific Reports
author_facet Benjamin J. Singer
Robin N. Thompson
Michael B. Bonsall
author_sort Benjamin J. Singer
title The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk
title_short The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk
title_full The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk
title_fullStr The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk
title_full_unstemmed The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk
title_sort effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk
publisher Nature Publishing Group
series Scientific Reports
issn 2045-2322
publishDate 2021-01-01
description Abstract In the early stages of an outbreak, the term ‘pandemic’ can be used to communicate about infectious disease risk, particularly by those who wish to encourage a large-scale public health response. However, the term lacks a widely accepted quantitative definition. We show that, under alternate quantitative definitions of ‘pandemic’, an epidemiological metapopulation model produces different estimates of the probability of a pandemic. Critically, we show that using different definitions alters the projected effects of key parameters—such as inter-regional travel rates, degree of pre-existing immunity, and heterogeneity in transmission rates between regions—on the risk of a pandemic. Our analysis provides a foundation for understanding the scientific importance of precise language when discussing pandemic risk, illustrating how alternative definitions affect the conclusions of modelling studies. This serves to highlight that those working on pandemic preparedness must remain alert to the variability in the use of the term ‘pandemic’, and provide specific quantitative definitions when undertaking one of the types of analysis that we show to be sensitive to the pandemic definition.
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
work_keys_str_mv AT benjaminjsinger theeffectofthedefinitionofpandemiconquantitativeassessmentsofinfectiousdiseaseoutbreakrisk
AT robinnthompson theeffectofthedefinitionofpandemiconquantitativeassessmentsofinfectiousdiseaseoutbreakrisk
AT michaelbbonsall theeffectofthedefinitionofpandemiconquantitativeassessmentsofinfectiousdiseaseoutbreakrisk
AT benjaminjsinger effectofthedefinitionofpandemiconquantitativeassessmentsofinfectiousdiseaseoutbreakrisk
AT robinnthompson effectofthedefinitionofpandemiconquantitativeassessmentsofinfectiousdiseaseoutbreakrisk
AT michaelbbonsall effectofthedefinitionofpandemiconquantitativeassessmentsofinfectiousdiseaseoutbreakrisk
_version_ 1724316448570998784