Search

Mathematical modelling is used during disease outbreaks to compare control interventions. Using multiple models, the best method to combine model recommendations is unclear. Existing methods weight model projections, then rank control interventions using the combined projections, presuming model outputs are directly comparable. However, the way each model represents the epidemiological system will vary. We apply electoral vote-processing rules to combine model-generated rankings of interventions. Combining rankings of interventions, instead of combining model projections, avoids assuming that projections are comparable as all comparisons of projections are made within each model. We investigate four rules: First-past-the-post, Alternative Vote (AV), Coombs Method and Borda Count. We investigate rule sensitivity by including models that favour only one action or including those that rank interventions randomly. We investigate two case studies: the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa (37 compartmental models) and a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in UK (four individual-based models). The Coombs Method was least susceptible to adding models that favoured a single action, Borda Count and AV were most susceptible to adding models that ranked interventions randomly. Each rule chose the same intervention as when ranking interventions by mean projections, suggesting that combining rankings provides similar recommendations with fewer assumptions about model comparability. This article is part of the theme issue 'Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SARS-CoV-2 has spread across the world, causing high mortality and unprecedented restrictions on social and economic activity. Policymakers are assessing how best to navigate through the ongoing epidemic, with computational models being used to predict the spread of infection and assess the impact of public health measures. Here, we present OpenABM-Covid19: an agent-based simulation of the epidemic including detailed age-stratification and realistic social networks. By default the model is parameterised to UK demographics and calibrated to the UK epidemic, however, it can easily be re-parameterised for other countries. OpenABM-Covid19 can evaluate non-pharmaceutical interventions, including both manual and digital contact tracing, and vaccination programmes. It can simulate a population of 1 million people in seconds per day, allowing parameter sweeps and formal statistical model-based inference. The code is open-source and has been developed by teams both inside and outside academia, with an emphasis on formal testing, documentation, modularity and transparency. A key feature of OpenABM-Covid19 are its Python and R interfaces, which has allowed scientists and policymakers to simulate dynamic packages of interventions and help compare options to suppress the COVID-19 epidemic. Author summary: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, computational modelling has been used to inform key uncertainties facing policymakers such as the number of cases and deaths, hospital capacity, tests and contact tracers. Models need to be: sufficiently complex to yield realistic predictions; computationally efficient to allow calibrations; and easy to use so that various policy mixes can be evaluated. OpenABM-Covid19 is a detailed epidemic model of the spread of COVID-19, simulating every individual in a population. Our model enables scientists and policymakers to quickly compare the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions like lockdowns, testing, quarantine, and digital and manual contact tracing. The model considers a hypothetical city with a default population of 1 million people whose ages and contact patterns are parameterised according to UK demographics. All of the parameters are openly documented and modifiable so that they can be adapted to fit other countries' data, and refined to match our understanding of COVID-19 as the epidemic progresses. The computer model simulates people's movement between their homes, workplaces, schools, and social interactions. OpenABM-Covid19 is open source and has been developed collaboratively by teams from academia and industry. Its modularity, documentation, testing framework, and accessibility via Python and R have provided validation, invited contributions, and encouraged wide adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Livestock diseases have devastating consequences economically, socially and politically across the globe. In certain systems, pathogens remain viable after host death, which enables residual transmissions from infected carcasses. Rapid culling and carcass disposal are well-established strategies for stamping out an outbreak and limiting its impact; however, wait-times for these procedures, i.e. response delays, are typically farm-specific and time-varying due to logistical constraints. Failing to incorporate variable response delays in epidemiological models may understate outbreak projections and mislead management decisions. We revisited the 2001 foot-and-mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom and sought to understand how misrepresented response delays can influence model predictions. Survival analysis identified farm size and control demand as key factors that impeded timely culling and disposal activities on individual farms. Using these factors in the context of an existing policy to predict local variation in response times significantly affected predictions at the national scale. Models that assumed fixed, timely responses grossly underestimated epidemic severity and its long-term consequences. As a result, this study demonstrates how general inclusion of response dynamics and recognition of partial controllability of interventions can help inform management priorities during epidemics of livestock diseases.

In the event of a new infectious disease outbreak, mathematical and simulation models are commonly used to inform policy by evaluating which control strategies will minimize the impact of the epidemic. In the early stages of such outbreaks, substantial parameter uncertainty may limit the ability of models to provide accurate predictions, and policymakers do not have the luxury of waiting for data to alleviate this state of uncertainty. For policymakers, however, it is the selection of the optimal control intervention in the face of uncertainty, rather than accuracy of model predictions, that is the measure of success that counts. We simulate the process of real-time decision-making by fitting an epidemic model to observed, spatially-explicit, infection data at weekly intervals throughout two historical outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, UK in 2001 and Miyazaki, Japan in 2010, and compare forward simulations of the impact of switching to an alternative control intervention at the time point in question. These are compared to policy recommendations generated in hindsight using data from the entire outbreak, thereby comparing the best we could have done at the time with the best we could have done in retrospect. Our results show that the control policy that would have been chosen using all the data is also identified from an early stage in an outbreak using only the available data, despite high variability in projections of epidemic size. Critically, we find that it is an improved understanding of the locations of infected farms, rather than improved estimates of transmission parameters, that drives improved prediction of the relative performance of control interventions. However, the ability to estimate undetected infectious premises is a function of uncertainty in the transmission parameters. Here, we demonstrate the need for both real-time model fitting and generating projections to evaluate alternative control interventions throughout an outbreak. Our results highlight the use of using models at outbreak onset to inform policy and the importance of state-dependent interventions that adapt in response to additional information throughout an outbreak., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.