Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 24, Number 1—January 2018
Historical Review

Pneumonic Plague in Johannesburg, South Africa, 1904

Charles M. EvansComments to Author , Joseph R. Egan, and Ian Hall
Author affiliations: University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK (C.M. Evans); Public Health England, Wiltshire, UK (J.R. Egan, I. Hall)

Main Article

Figure 4

A) Deaths per day resulting from primary pneumonic plague in Johannesburg, South Africa, March 7–31, 1904. B) Back-calculated number of case-patients experiencing symptom onset. Circles represent most likely values; error bars represent 95% CIs. C) Transmissibility of primary pneumonic plague as measured by reproduction number, Rt. Circles represent the most likely values, error bars represent 95% CIs, and shaded polygons represent the period over which Rt was estimated. Uncertainty in the back-

Figure 4. A) Deaths per day resulting from primary pneumonic plague in Johannesburg, South Africa, March 7–31, 1904. B) Back-calculated number of case-patients experiencing symptom onset. Circles represent most likely values; error bars represent 95% CIs. C) Transmissibility of primary pneumonic plague as measured by reproduction number, Rt. Circles represent the most likely values, error bars represent 95% CIs, and shaded polygons represent the period over which Rt was estimated. Uncertainty in the back-calculated incidence has not been accounted for in the transmission estimates, which means that the variations in the time-varying Rt are probably underestimated because the incidence curve is smoothed out somewhat by the back-calculation process (and also reduced slightly because of rounding to the nearest integer). However, because the 7-day sliding window has the effect of smoothing out the Rt estimates in any case, not accounting for the uncertainty in the back-calculation probably has a limited effect on panel C results.

Main Article

Page created: December 19, 2017
Page updated: December 19, 2017
Page reviewed: December 19, 2017
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external