Abstract
Whilst emergency vaccination may help contain foot-and-mouth disease in a previously FMD-free country, its use complicates post-outbreak surveillance and the recovery of FMD-free status. A structured surveillance program is required that can distinguish between vaccinated and residually infected animals, and provide statistical confidence that the virus is no longer circulating in previously infected areas.
Epidemiological models have been well-used to investigate the potential benefits of emergency vaccination during a control progam and when/where/whom to vaccinate in the face of finite supplies of vaccine and personnel. Less well studied are post-outbreak issues such as the management of vaccinated animals and the implications of having used vaccination during surveillance regimes to support proof-of-freedom. This paper presents enhancements to the Australian Animal Disease Model (AADIS) that allow comparisons of different post-outbreak surveillance sampling regimes for establishing proof-of-freedom from FMD.
A case study is provided that compares a baseline surveillance sampling regime (derived from current OIE guidelines), with an alternative less intensive sampling regime. It was found that when vaccination was not part of the control program, a reduced sampling intensity significantly reduced the number of samples collected and the cost of the post-outbreak surveillance program, without increasing the risk of missing residual infected herds.