IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0030223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Was the 2009 Influenza Pandemic in England So Small?

Author

Listed:
  • Ruben J Kubiak
  • Angela R McLean

Abstract

The “Swine flu” pandemic of 2009 caused world-wide infections and deaths. Early efforts to understand its rate of spread were used to predict the probable future number of cases, but by the end of 2009 it was clear that these predictions had substantially overestimated the pandemic's eventual impact. In England, the Health Protection Agency made announcements of the number of cases of disease, which turned out to be surprisingly low for an influenza pandemic. The agency also carried out a serological survey half-way through the English epidemic. In this study, we use a mathematical model to reconcile early estimates of the rate of spread of infection, weekly data on the number of cases in the 2009 epidemic in England and the serological status of the English population at the end of the first pandemic wave. Our results reveal that if there are around 19 infections (i.e., seroconverters) for every reported case then the three data-sets are entirely consistent with each other. We go on to discuss when in the epidemic such a high ratio of seroconverters to cases of disease might have been detected, either through patterns in the case reports or through even earlier serological surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruben J Kubiak & Angela R McLean, 2012. "Why Was the 2009 Influenza Pandemic in England So Small?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-8, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0030223
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030223
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030223&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0030223?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0030223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.