Author: Nicholas G Reich; Justin Lessler; Jay K Varma; Neil M Vora
Title: Quantifying the Risk and Cost of Active Monitoring for Infectious Diseases Document date: 2017_6_28
ID: h89scli5_4
Snippet: Recommendations for active monitoring were discontinued in February 2016. (2) Over 20% of all individuals actively monitored for Ebola in the United States were monitored in New York City (NYC), more than any other jurisdiction. (1) to identify, isolate, and treat infected individuals quickly. Setting an active monitoring period many times longer than any known incubation period of the pathogen of interest could virtually guarantee that all infec.....
Document: Recommendations for active monitoring were discontinued in February 2016. (2) Over 20% of all individuals actively monitored for Ebola in the United States were monitored in New York City (NYC), more than any other jurisdiction. (1) to identify, isolate, and treat infected individuals quickly. Setting an active monitoring period many times longer than any known incubation period of the pathogen of interest could virtually guarantee that all infected individuals would exhibit symptoms while being monitored. However, such a program would be unreasonably expensive, inconvenience monitored individuals, and incur many financial and social costs through frequent responses to false positive cases. Evidence-based monitoring periods and appropriate tailoring of the monitoring intensity to disease risk should therefore be used to balance costs with biosecurity risks.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- active monitoring and incubation period: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
- active monitoring period and incubation period: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- biosecurity risk and incubation period: 1
- evidence base and frequent response: 1
- incubation period and infect individual: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date