Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pone.0235731 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0235731 32628716!7337314!32628716     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       PLoS+One 2020 ; 15 (7): e0235731 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32628716|t=2020. Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?|pdf=|usr=}}{{32628716}} gab.com Text Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32628716 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Mobility restrictions-trade and travel bans, border closures and, in extreme cases, area quarantines or cordons sanitaires-are among the most widely used measures to control infectious diseases. Restrictions of this kind were important in the response to epidemics of SARS (2003), H1N1 influenza (2009), Ebola (2014) and, currently in the containment of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, they do not always work as expected. METHODS: To determine when mobility restrictions reduce the size of an epidemic, we use a model of disease transmission within and between economically heterogeneous locally connected communities. One community comprises a low-risk, low-density population with access to effective medical resources. The other comprises a high-risk, high-density population without access to effective medical resources. FINDINGS: Unrestricted mobility between the two risk communities increases the number of secondary cases in the low-risk community but reduces the overall epidemic size. By contrast, the imposition of a cordon sanitaire around the high-risk community reduces the number of secondary infections in the low-risk community but increases the overall epidemic size. INTERPRETATION: Mobility restrictions may not be an effective policy for controlling the spread of an infectious disease if it is assessed by the overall final epidemic size. Patterns of mobility established through the independent mobility and trade decisions of people in both communities may be sufficient to contain epidemics. Twit Text FOAVip Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32628716 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32628716 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32628716}}</ref> Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work? #MMPMID32628716 Espinoza B; Castillo-Chavez C; Perrings C PLoS One 2020[]; 15 (7): e0235731 PMID32628716show ga BACKGROUND: Mobility restrictions-trade and travel bans, border closures and, in extreme cases, area quarantines or cordons sanitaires-are among the most widely used measures to control infectious diseases. Restrictions of this kind were important in the response to epidemics of SARS (2003), H1N1 influenza (2009), Ebola (2014) and, currently in the containment of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, they do not always work as expected. METHODS: To determine when mobility restrictions reduce the size of an epidemic, we use a model of disease transmission within and between economically heterogeneous locally connected communities. One community comprises a low-risk, low-density population with access to effective medical resources. The other comprises a high-risk, high-density population without access to effective medical resources. FINDINGS: Unrestricted mobility between the two risk communities increases the number of secondary cases in the low-risk community but reduces the overall epidemic size. By contrast, the imposition of a cordon sanitaire around the high-risk community reduces the number of secondary infections in the low-risk community but increases the overall epidemic size. INTERPRETATION: Mobility restrictions may not be an effective policy for controlling the spread of an infectious disease if it is assessed by the overall final epidemic size. Patterns of mobility established through the independent mobility and trade decisions of people in both communities may be sufficient to contain epidemics. |*Betacoronavirus[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/economics/*epidemiology/*transmission/virology[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |International Cooperation[MESH] |Models, Biological[MESH] |Pandemics/economics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/economics/*epidemiology/*transmission/virology[MESH] |Quarantine/economics/*methods[MESH] |Residence Characteristics[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Travel[MESH]Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing