Accuracy of Models for the 2001 Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic
Author Information
Author(s): Tildesley Michael J, Deardon Rob, Savill Nicholas J, Bessell Paul R, Brooks Stephen P, Woolhouse Mark E.J, Grenfell Bryan T, Keeling Matt J
Primary Institution: University of Warwick
Hypothesis
Can models accurately predict the infectious status of farms during the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic?
Conclusion
The model's predictions of infection status were generally low, but it was a reliable representation of the epidemic process.
Supporting Evidence
- The model predicted infection status with an accuracy of 5-15%.
- The accuracy of predicting culls was higher at 20-30%.
- The model was parametrized using aggregate regional data.
Takeaway
The study looked at how well models could predict which farms would get sick during a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, finding that predictions were not very accurate.
Methodology
The study compared model predictions with actual data at the individual farm level during the 2001 epidemic.
Potential Biases
The model may not fully capture the unpredictable human element in culling decisions.
Limitations
The model's accuracy was influenced by the complex human responses to the epidemic and the stochastic nature of disease transmission.
Participant Demographics
The study involved 188,496 farms identified as containing livestock in the UK.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website