The following solution was sent in by
Thomas from Dalton Primary School, New York. If you repeated
Thomas's experiment with the same simulation parameters you would
get different results. Can you think why? It is because the
results depend on probabilities. To get reliable results that we
can base decisions on we need to find the average (or mean)
results from many repetitions of the same experiment with exactly
the same parameters.
Thomas's results are interesting because
they show very different outcomes according to whether the sick
people circulate in the village, or stay at home or are put in
total isolation. Lewis from Highcliff Primary School also says
that isolation is a good policy but when do you think it is
advisable and why?
Thomas's results
I modelled a large village being
affected by a very lethal and infectious disease and looked at
the impact of mobility and isolation on the length of the
epidemic, the number of deaths, the number of infections, and the
number of recoveries. @ @
| The simulation parameters were: |
|
| Grid Dimension |
50 |
| Speed |
5 |
| Initial Population |
500 |
| Initially infected |
1 |
| Initially immune |
0 |
| Days ill |
8 |
| Days before infectiousness |
1 |
| Probability of death |
0.7 |
| Probability of infection |
0.7 |
| Probability of static |
0.1 |
| Immune after illness |
true |
| Mobility behaviour |
all three options in turn:
(normal, static, isolated)
|
The results were:
| Mobility |
Duration |
Deaths |
Not infected |
Recovered |
|
|
|
|
|
| Normal |
169 |
342 |
33 |
125 |
| Static |
35 |
15 |
481 |
4 |
| Isolated |
9 |
1 |
498 |
1 |
Conclusions:
1) Reduced mobility and isolation had an enormous impact on the
duration of the epidemic, the number of deaths, and the
infection rate.
2) Isolation was more effective than people remaining static
when infected.
3) This suggests that when there is a dangerous epidemic (High
infection rate, high death rate), effective public health
policies would be to tell people to stay at home and to isolate
those who are sick.
Ruth from Manchester High School for Girls sent us this careful
investigation of a different aspect of this problem. She
repeated each experiment several times and drew conclusions
from the mean of several runs.
Ruth's Results:
I am investigating whether the incubation period of an illness
affects how useful it is to isolate infected individuals.
| The simulation parameters were: |
|
| Grid Dimension |
25 |
| Initial Population |
150 |
| Initially infected |
25 |
| Initially immune |
0 |
| Days ill |
8 |
| Probability of death |
0.9 |
| Probability of infection |
0.9 |
| Probability of static |
0.1 |
| Gain immunity |
true |
Independent Variables:
Days before infectious
Behaviour if ill
RESULTS
Normal when ill
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 19.8 | 135 | 0.2 | 14.8 |
| St. dev. | 2.7 | 3.6 | 0.4 | 3.5
|
If the behaviour when ill is normal, the number of days before infectiousness makes no difference.
Isolated when ill
0 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 9 | 21.6 | 125 | 3.4 |
| St. dev. | 0 | 1.5 | 0 | 1.5
|
1 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 15.2 | 81.8 | 56.8 | 11.4 |
| St. dev. | 1.6 | 5.5 | 8.4 | 3.4
|
2 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 18.6 | 113.4 | 26.8 | 9.8 |
| St. dev. | 4.4 | 7.2 | 6.4 | 4.6
|
3 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 19 | 126.2 | 10.8 | 13 |
| St. dev. | 1.5 | 6.3 | 7.5 | 1.7
|
4 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 19.2 | 129.2 | 4.4 | 16.4 |
| St. dev. | 1.9 | 4.1 | 2.2 | 4.2
|
5 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 18.8 | 133 | 0.6 | 16.4 |
| St. dev. | 1.9 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 2.9
|
6 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 21.8 | 133.2 | 0.6 | 16.2 |
| St. dev. | 4.7 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 4.5
|
7 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 20 | 133 | 0.4 | 15.8 |
| St. dev. | 1.7 | 4.1 | 0.8 | 3.3
|
8 days before infectious
| Duration | Deaths | Never Ill | Recovered |
| Mean | 19.6 | 136.8 | 0.2 | 13 |
| St. dev. | 0.8 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 1.7
|
This disease is very lethal and infectious. If nothing is done, it will
kill most of the population of the town. Isolation is an effective way of
reducing the death toll and duration of the epidemic.
If the time before infectiousness is a large proportion of the duration of
the illness, it makes very little difference to the outcome whether or not
infected people are isolated. The percentage difference between the number
of deaths when isolated and not isolated is under 1.5 before infectiousness is over half the length of the illness (5 days or
more) but is over 80 is almost 40 epidemic follows a similar pattern with less than 1 isolation and non-isolation for 7 or 8 days before infectiousness but over
50 These results show that, while isolating infected individuals will almost
always reduce the death toll and end the epidemic sooner, it is most
effective when the incubation period of the illness is relatively short.
As the incubation period increases, the amount of time that infected
individuals are isolated for, and therefore the amount of time they are
not infecting others for, decreases, so it is not unexpected that this is
the case. The results suggest that, as isolating infected people would be
quite difficult and expensive, it is only worth doing so if the incubation
period of the infection, when they are infectious but show no symptoms, is
quite short compared to the period when they do show symptoms so would be
isolated.