2 resultados para staff attitudes
em eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture
Resumo:
A recent report to the Australian Government identified concerns relating to Australia's capacity to respond to a medium to large outbreak of FMD. To assess the resources required, the AusSpread disease simulation model was used to develop a plausible outbreak scenario that included 62 infected premises in five different states at the time of detection, 28 days after the disease entered the first property in Victoria. Movements of infected animals and/or contaminated product/equipment led to smaller outbreaks in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. With unlimited staff resources, the outbreak was eradicated in 63 days with 54 infected premises and a 98% chance of eradication within 3 months. This unconstrained response was estimated to involve 2724 personnel. Unlimited personnel was considered unrealistic, and therefore, the course of the outbreak was modelled using three levels of staffing and the probability of achieving eradication within 3 or 6 months of introduction determined. Under the baseline staffing level, there was only a 16% probability that the outbreak would be eradicated within 3 months, and a 60% probability of eradication in 6 months. Deployment of an additional 60 personnel in the first 3 weeks of the response increased the likelihood of eradication in 3 months to 68%, and 100% in 6 months. Deployment of further personnel incrementally increased the likelihood of timely eradication and decreased the duration and size of the outbreak. Targeted use of vaccination in high-risk areas coupled with the baseline personnel resources increased the probability of eradication in 3 months to 74% and to 100% in 6 months. This required 25 vaccination teams commencing 12 days into the control program increasing to 50 vaccination teams 3 weeks later. Deploying an equal number of additional personnel to surveillance and infected premises operations was equally effective in reducing the outbreak size and duration.
Resumo:
The urban presence of flying-foxes (pteropid bats) in eastern Australia has increased in the last 20 years, putatively reflecting broader landscape change. The influx of large numbers often precipitates community angst, typically stemming from concerns about loss of social amenity, economic loss or negative health impacts from recently emerged bat-mediated zoonotic diseases such as Hendra virus and Australian bat lyssavirus. Local authorities and state wildlife authorities are increasingly asked to approve the dispersal or modification of flying-fox roosts to address expressed concerns, yet the scale of this concern within the community, and the veracity of the basis for concern are often unclear. We conducted an on-line survey to capture community attitudes and opinions on flying-foxes in the urban environment to inform management policy and decision-making. Analysis focused on awareness, concerns, and management options, and primarily compared responses from communities where flying-fox management was and was not topical at the time of the survey. While a majority of respondents indicated a moderate to high level of knowledge of both flying-foxes and Hendra virus, a substantial minority mistakenly believed that flying-foxes pose a direct infection risk to humans, suggesting miscommunication or misinformation, and the need for additional risk communication strategies. Secondly, a minority of community members indicated they were directly impacted by urban roosts, most plausibly those living in close proximity to the roost, suggesting that targeted management options are warranted. Thirdly, neither dispersal nor culling was seen as an appropriate management strategy by the majority of respondents, including those from postcodes where flying-fox management was topical. These findings usefully inform community debate and policy development and demonstrate the value of social analysis in defining the issues and options in this complex human - wildlife interaction. The mobile nature of flying-foxes underlines the need for a management strategy at a regional or larger scale, and independent of state borders.