Gupta Anu G, Moyer Cheryl A, Stern David T
Global REACH, University of Michigan Medical School, 7C 06 NIB, P.O. Box 0429, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0429, USA.
J Infect. 2005 Jun;50(5):386-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2004.08.006.
Over time, quarantine has become a classic public health intervention and has been used repeatedly when newly emerging infectious diseases have threatened to spread throughout a population. Here, we weigh the economic costs and benefits associated with implementing widespread quarantine in Toronto during the SARS outbreaks of 2003.
We compared the costs of two outbreak scenarios: in Scenario A, SARS is able to transmit itself throughout a population without any significant public health interventions. In Scenario B, quarantine is implemented early on in an attempt to contain the virus. By evaluating these situations, we can investigate whether or not the use of quarantine is justified by being either cost-saving, life saving, or both.
Our results indicate that quarantine is effective in containing newly emerging infectious diseases, and also cost saving when compared to not implementing a widespread containment mechanism.
This paper illustrates that it is not only in our humanitarian interest for public health and healthcare officials to remain aggressive in their response to newly emerging infections, but also in our collective economic interest. Despite somewhat daunting initial costs, quarantine saves both lives and money.
随着时间的推移,隔离已成为一种经典的公共卫生干预措施,在新出现的传染病有可能在人群中传播时被反复使用。在此,我们权衡了2003年非典疫情期间在多伦多实施广泛隔离所带来的经济成本和效益。
我们比较了两种疫情情景的成本:在情景A中,非典在没有任何重大公共卫生干预措施的情况下在人群中自行传播。在情景B中,早期实施隔离以试图控制病毒。通过评估这些情况,我们可以研究实施隔离是否因节省成本、挽救生命或两者兼具而具有合理性。
我们的结果表明,隔离对于控制新出现的传染病是有效的,而且与不实施广泛的控制机制相比还能节省成本。
本文表明,公共卫生和医疗保健官员积极应对新出现的感染不仅符合我们的人道主义利益,也符合我们的集体经济利益。尽管初期成本有些令人望而却步,但隔离既能挽救生命又能节省资金。