The Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Science released a
letter report on H5N1 pandemic modeling that highlights some of the questions asked here.
Basic inputs into any pandemic model are the infectivity rate (how many catch it), the attack rate (how many who are infected get sick), the mode of infection (aerosols, surface contamination, food, etc), mean time between cases (elapsed time between on infection and the ones produced by it), and mean transmission rate (related to infectivity rate: how often will an infection be passed on).
Please note I'm going quickly here and these terms have nuanced definitions that sometimes escape me, but the gist is this: we don't know much of anything about these critical inputs when it comes to flu in general and H5N1 in particular.
"All models lie, some models are useful." So are the models useless? Well, are mortars useful? It's an apt analogy. By plugging in a range of assumptions, these guys can bracket the problem with best case and worst case. As more data come in, they correct the model and fire another round. The time lapse between corrections can be frustrating, but at least the models help clarify what we don't know (questions are sometimes more important than answers).
On first reading, some of the models support quarantine, masks, respiratory etiquette, etc. as useful in "flattening the curve", the current mantra in public health circles.
I do know for a fact that a couple of these guys have prepped for 3 months of total isolation. ("Food: check; water: check, pocket protectors: check...")
Threaded Mode
