cap <- "Probability of detection due to exposition to infected wild boar during the prediction period (D80 - D110), for farms in the area at risk."
cap <- "Probability of detection due to exposition to infected wild boar during the prediction period (D80 - D110), for farms in the area at risk. The rectangles represent the fenced (inner) and the buffer zones (outer)."
- With the current (D110) policy of disease control on farms, the disease is most likely to continue spreading locally between neighbouring farms within the fenced area and buffer zone. However, the risk of infectious animal shipments out of the area is very low according to our model (and it's assumptions).
- We identified farm id
- We identified farm with site-ids
`r tab_farms_pred_CSIF_D80 %>% filter(!detected, p_pred >= .3) %>% pull(id) %>% paste(collapse = ", ")` as likely ($p \geq .3$) to have been
infected in this period (D80 - D110).
To a lesser extent ($.1 \leq p < .3$), farm sites `r tab_farms_pred_CSIF_D80 %>% filter(!detected, p_pred > .1, p_pred < .3) %>% pull(id) %>% sort %>% paste(collapse = ", ")` also have some risk of being infected.
A few other farms have even smaller risks (see Table \@ref(tab:table-farms-pred)).
- The risk associated with pig trade is very low ($<1\%$).
- The total number of animals affected in these farms are
`r tab_farms_pred_CSIF_D80 %>% filter(!detected, p_pred >= .3) %>% pull(size) %>% sum` in the first case and `r tab_farms_pred_CSIF_D80 %>% filter(!detected, p_pred > .1, p_pred < .3) %>% pull(size) %>% sum` in the second.
- The risk associated with __pig trade__ is very low (below $1\%$ probability of infection for all farms).
- The __expected number of affected animals__, under the current control strategy (in addition to those from already detected farms) is `r (exp_nanimals = exp_pigs_cs %>% filter(CS == "IF") %>% pull("Exp pigs")) %>% round()` out of `r round((total_animals = pig_sites_risks_D80 %>% filter(!detected) %>% pull(size) %>% sum) %>% "/"(1e6))` M heads (`r round(exp_nanimals / total_animals * 100, 2)`%).
- The current control strategy on farms works well. The combination of culling of infected farms and ban trading in protection and surveillance zones are really effective to contain the spread of the disease.
- Among the additional culling measures, the one with largest impact would be culling herds in the protection zones. But the reduction is marginal (see Table \@ref(tab:exp-pigs-cs)). However, these results are preliminary as we didn't fully account for the culling strategy in the assessment of the transmission via fomites. Thus, the impacts are likely a bit larger. In particular for the culling strategy based on the proximity to infectious wild boar carcasses.
<!-- David, you removed this? -->
<!-- - Among the proposed supplementary culling measures concerning domestic pigs, the one with largest impact would be culling herds in the protection zones. But the reduction is marginal (see Table \@ref(tab:exp-pigs-cs)). However, these results are preliminar as we didn't fully account for the culling strategy in the assessment of the transmission via fomites. Thus, the impacts are likely a bit larger. In particular for the culling strategy based on the proximity to infected wild boar carcasses. -->
- Among the additional culling measures, the one with largest impact would be culling herds in the viccinity of wild boar carcasses. But the reduction is marginal (see Table \@ref(tab:exp-pigs-cs)). However, these results are preliminary as we didn't fully account for the culling strategy in the assessment of the transmission via fomites. Thus, the impacts are likely a bit larger.
- The strategy consisting on increasing the size of the active-search area around wild boar carcasses from 1 to 2 km was not assessed, but we think that it would not have a major impact.
