Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intrinsic randomness in epidemic modelling beyond statistical uncertainty.
Penn, Matthew J; Laydon, Daniel J; Penn, Joseph; Whittaker, Charles; Morgenstern, Christian; Ratmann, Oliver; Mishra, Swapnil; Pakkanen, Mikko S; Donnelly, Christl A; Bhatt, Samir.
Afiliación
  • Penn MJ; University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Laydon DJ; Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Penn J; University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Whittaker C; Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Morgenstern C; Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Ratmann O; Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Mishra S; University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Pakkanen MS; Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Donnelly CA; University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
  • Bhatt S; University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Commun Phys ; 6(1): 146, 2023.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38665405
ABSTRACT
Uncertainty can be classified as either aleatoric (intrinsic randomness) or epistemic (imperfect knowledge of parameters). The majority of frameworks assessing infectious disease risk consider only epistemic uncertainty. We only ever observe a single epidemic, and therefore cannot empirically determine aleatoric uncertainty. Here, we characterise both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty using a time-varying general branching process. Our framework explicitly decomposes aleatoric variance into mechanistic components, quantifying the contribution to uncertainty produced by each factor in the epidemic process, and how these contributions vary over time. The aleatoric variance of an outbreak is itself a renewal equation where past variance affects future variance. We find that, superspreading is not necessary for substantial uncertainty, and profound variation in outbreak size can occur even without overdispersion in the offspring distribution (i.e. the distribution of the number of secondary infections an infected person produces). Aleatoric forecasting uncertainty grows dynamically and rapidly, and so forecasting using only epistemic uncertainty is a significant underestimate. Therefore, failure to account for aleatoric uncertainty will ensure that policymakers are misled about the substantially higher true extent of potential risk. We demonstrate our method, and the extent to which potential risk is underestimated, using two historical examples.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Commun Phys Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Commun Phys Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido