• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Variability in transmissibility of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Canadian communities

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
The prevalence and severity of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic appeared to vary significantly across populations and geographic regions. We sought to investigate the variability in transmissibility of H1N1 pandemic in different health regions (including urban centres and remote, isolated communities) in the province of Manitoba, Canada.

Methods: The Richards model was used to fit to the daily number of laboratory-confirmed cases and estimate transmissibility (referred to as the basic reproduction number, R0), doubling times, and turning points of outbreaks in both spring and fall waves of the H1N1 pandemic in several health regions.

Results: We observed considerable variation in R0 estimates ranging from 1.55 to 2.24, with confidence intervals ranging from 1.45 to 2.88, for an average generation time of 2.9 days, and shorter doubling times in some remote and isolated communities compared to urban centres, suggesting a more rapid spread of disease in these communities during the first wave.

For the second wave, Re, the effective reproduction number, is estimated to be lower for remote and isolated communities; however, outbreaks appear to have been driven by somewhat higher transmissibility in urban centres.

Conclusions: There was considerable geographic variation in transmissibility of the 2009 pandemic outbreaks. While highlighting the importance of estimating R0 for informing health responses, the findings indicate that projecting thetransmissibility for large-scale epidemics may not faithfully characterize the early spread of disease in remote and isolated communities.

Author: Luiz C. Mostaco-GuidolinAmy GreerBeate SanderJianhong WuSeyed Moghadas
Credits/Source: BMC Research Notes 2011, 4:537


http://7thspace.com/headlines/40205...09_h1n1_pandemic_in_canadian_communities.html
 
Back
Top Bottom