2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2010.11.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From containment to community: Trigger points from the London pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza incident response

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[1][2][3] In London, information on detailed epidemiology was collected on cases from the initial case on 27 April to the onset of widespread community transmission (week of June 29). 4,5 Modelling of early transmission patterns from the UK suggests school-based transmission accounting for 37% of cases, based on 60% of cases with epidemiologically determined likely source of infection. 3,6 In using data from a single city, the pattern of early transmission of influenza leading up to established community spread can be described.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1][2][3] In London, information on detailed epidemiology was collected on cases from the initial case on 27 April to the onset of widespread community transmission (week of June 29). 4,5 Modelling of early transmission patterns from the UK suggests school-based transmission accounting for 37% of cases, based on 60% of cases with epidemiologically determined likely source of infection. 3,6 In using data from a single city, the pattern of early transmission of influenza leading up to established community spread can be described.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The waiting for full pay policy in the workplace reduced the overall risk of an H1N1 pandemic by about 20% in one flu season in Japan [ 37 ]. Prevention policy of many countries shifted from containment to mitigation after sustained community transmission became established, such as in Singapore [ 38 ], South Korea [ 39 ] and the United Kingdom [ 40 ]. A systematic review suggests the reduction of nonessential contacts and the closure of schools, plus the use of pharmaceutical prophylaxis, are amongst the cost effective strategies for all countries; however, quarantine for household contacts is not cost effective even for low and middle income countries [ 8 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%