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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |