Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Percentage reduction in cumulative influenza attack rate in the general population, by threshold for triggering intervention, modeling studies, 2000–2017

From: Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review

First author, year published Interventiona Threshold (%)b Percentage reductionc
R0 ≤ 1.9 R0 = 2.0–2.4 R0 ≥ 2.5
Zhang, 2012 [31] Single 0.02 18
0.25 18
1.5 18
5.0 17
Halloran-Imperial/Pitt model, 2008 [39] Multiple + AV 0.0001 99 96 64
0.001 99 95 64
0.01 99 94 64
0.1 97 88 62
1.0 83 70 53
10.0 31 27 23
Halloran-UW/LANL model, 2008 [39] Multiple + AV 0.0001 99 99 99
0.001 99 99 99
0.01 99 99 99
0.1 99 99 98
1.0 94 92 86
10.0 57 54 47
Halloran-VBI model, 2008 [39] Multiple + AV 0.0001 96 89 67
0.001 96 89 67
0.01 96 89 67
0.1 96 88 66
1.0 91 81 64
10.0 55 49 50
Milne, 2008 [34, 40] Single Prior to first case 28
2 weeks after 1st case 27
4 weeks after 1st case 25
6 weeks after 1st case 19
Multiple Prior to first case 94 95
2 weeks after 1st case 94 89
4 weeks after 1st case 86 29
6 weeks after 1st case 73 1
Milne, 2013 [35] Multiple Immediately after 1st case 63
2 weeks after 1st case 63
4 weeks after 1st case 48
  1. Abbreviations: R 0 basic reproduction number, Imperial/Pitt Imperial College and the University of Pittsburgh, UW/LANL University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and the Los Alamos National Laboratories, VBI Virginia Bioinformatics Institute of the Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University
  2. aSingle: Workplace social distancing; Multiple: Workplace social distancing and other nonpharmaceutical interventions; AV: Antiviral treatment and prophylaxis
  3. bThreshold percent: Cumulative influenza illness attack rate in the general population that will trigger intervention
  4. cPercentage reduction = ((Attack rate in the absence of intervention – Attack rate with intervention) / Attack rate in the absence of intervention) × 100