2004
DOI: 10.1136/vr.154.20.617
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk of foot‐and‐mouth disease associated with proximity in space and time to infected premises and the implications for control policy during the 2001 epidemic in Cumbria

Abstract: An analysis was made that calculated the risk of disease for premises in the most heavily affected parts of the county of Cumbria during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in the UK in 2001. In over half the cases the occurrence of the disease was not directly attributable to a recently infected premises being located within 1.5 km. Premises more than 1.5 km from recently infected premises faced sufficiently high infection risks that culling within a 1.5 km radius of the infected premises alone could not have… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
28
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, three km of spatial distance was selected subjectively and used as the only analytical approach for geographical distance, while a temporal distance of 3 mo was used as the most important, but not the only, temporal cutpoint. This spatial cutpoint was in concordance with how local spread was defined in a field during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK [14]. Our assumption was that the causative agent of PCVAD from the initially infected premises would not be more contagious to neighboring farms than the foot-and-mouth disease virus.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…Thus, three km of spatial distance was selected subjectively and used as the only analytical approach for geographical distance, while a temporal distance of 3 mo was used as the most important, but not the only, temporal cutpoint. This spatial cutpoint was in concordance with how local spread was defined in a field during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK [14]. Our assumption was that the causative agent of PCVAD from the initially infected premises would not be more contagious to neighboring farms than the foot-and-mouth disease virus.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…Moreover, flocks that were considered at risk of infection based on the proximity (<1 km) to, or dangerous contacts with IFs, were inspected and laboratory analysis was carried out according to EU standards (CEC, 1992) The hypothesized infectious period of each IF was modelled as a Temporal Risk Window (TRW). The TRW can be defined as the time period during which clinical signs could be identified in any other farm infected by transmission from the IF (Taylor et al, 2004). The TRW was calculated for each IF as following (Mannelli et al, 2006):…”
Section: Data Sourcesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of FMD, the main risk factor contributing to transmission of disease has been shown to be proximity to previously infected farms [14][16] and it therefore seems that a precise knowledge of farm locations may be vital to making epidemiological predictions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%