Outbreak forecasts sometimes wrong because they work

Outbreak forecasts sometimes wrong because they work

In Nature, SFI Omidyar Fellow Sam Scarpino is among 24 co-authors offering a rebuttal to recent assertions that epidemiological models used to estimate the trajectory of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa missed the mark.

On November 4, Nature writer Declan Butler wrote: "For the current crisis, on-the-ground data contradict the projections of published models." He then noted several model forecasts that had failed to predict the course of the outbreak.

The editorial prompted lead author Caitlin Rivers and co-authors to write: "We argue that the author misrepresents the purpose of epidemic models, and overlooks the role models play in outbreak response," noting that the modeling forecasts themselves encourage , which can change the course of the outbreak.

"As those interventions were implemented and as behaviors changed, case counts that diverged from the modeled baseline were one of the earliest indicators that the adaptive response was having an impact," they write. "Instead of portraying them as having 'missed the mark', we encourage a closer inspection of the importance of models beyond providing forecasts.

Explore further

DR Congo declares itself Ebola-free

More information: "Ebola: models do more than forecast." Nature 515, 492 (27 November 2014) DOI: 10.1038/515492a
Journal information: Nature

Provided by Santa Fe Institute
Citation: Outbreak forecasts sometimes wrong because they work (2014, December 2) retrieved 24 May 2019 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12-outbreak-wrong.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more