Letter | Published:

Optimal reactive vaccination strategies for a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK

Nature volume 440, pages 8386 (02 March 2006) | Download Citation



Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the UK provides an ideal opportunity to explore optimal control measures for an infectious disease. The presence of fine-scale spatio-temporal data for the 2001 epidemic has allowed the development of epidemiological models that are more accurate than those generally created for other epidemics1,2,3,4,5 and provide the opportunity to explore a variety of alternative control measures. Vaccination was not used during the 2001 epidemic; however, the recent DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) contingency plan6 details how reactive vaccination would be considered in future. Here, using the data from the 2001 epidemic, we consider the optimal deployment of limited vaccination capacity in a complex heterogeneous environment. We use a model of FMD spread to investigate the optimal deployment of reactive ring vaccination of cattle constrained by logistical resources. The predicted optimal ring size is highly dependent upon logistical constraints but is more robust to epidemiological parameters. Other ways of targeting reactive vaccination can significantly reduce the epidemic size; in particular, ignoring the order in which infections are reported and vaccinating those farms closest to any previously reported case can substantially reduce the epidemic. This strategy has the advantage that it rapidly targets new foci of infection and that determining an optimal ring size is unnecessary.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. Dynamics of the 2001 UK foot and mouth epidemic: stochastic dispersal in a heterogeneous landscape. Science 294, 813–817 (2001)

  2. 2.

    , , , & Modelling vaccination strategies against foot-and-mouth disease. Nature 421, 136–142 (2003)

  3. 3.

    , & The foot-and-mouth epidemic in Great Britain: pattern of spread and impact of interventions. Science 292, 1155–1160 (2001)

  4. 4.

    , & Transmission intensity and impact of control policies on the foot and mouth epidemic in Great Britain. Nature 413, 542–548 (2001)

  5. 5.

    , , , & Predictive spatial modelling of alternative control strategies for the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Great Britain, 2001. Vet Recórd 149, 137–144 (2001)

  6. 6.

    DEFRA Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan (2004).

  7. 7.

    Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry (The Stationery Office, London, 2002)

  8. 8.

    Council Directive 2003/85/EC. Official J. Eur. Union L306, 46, 1–87 (2003).

  9. 9.

    , & Ring vaccination. Math. Biol. 41, 143–171 (2000)

  10. 10.

    & A review of emergency foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines. Vaccine 20, 1505–1514 (2002)

  11. 11.

    , , & Failure of vaccination to prevent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Epidem. Infect. 116, 363–371 (1996)

  12. 12.

    et al. Planning for smallpox outbreaks. Nature 425, 681–685 (2003)

  13. 13.

    & Modelling HIV vaccination. Trends Microbiol. 3, 458–463 (1995)

  14. 14.

    , & Targeted hepatitis B vaccination—a cost effective immunisation strategy for the UK? J. Epidemiol. Comm. Health 50, 667–673 (1996)

  15. 15.

    , & The design of veterinary vaccination programmes. Vet. J. 153, 41–47 (1997)

  16. 16.

    et al. Heterogeneities in the transmission of infectious agents: implications for the design of control programs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 338–342 (1997)

  17. 17.

    et al. Neighbourhood control policies and the spread of infectious disease. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 270, 1659–1666 (2003)

Download references


This research was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Author Contributions M.J.T. and M.J.K. were responsible for the model formulation and analysis of results; N.J.S. provided helpful discussions throughout; D.J.S. generated cleaned demographic and epidemic data; R.D. and S.P.B. provided vital statistical input; M.E.J.W. and B.T.G. were instrumental in the initial development of the project. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Author information


  1. Department of Biological Sciences and Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

    • Michael J. Tildesley
    •  & Matt J. Keeling
  2. Statistical Laboratory, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WB, UK

    • Nicholas J. Savill
    • , Rob Deardon
    •  & Stephen P. Brooks
  3. Epidemiology Group, Centre for Infectious Diseases, University of Edinburgh, Ashworth Laboratories, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JF, UK

    • Nicholas J. Savill
    •  & Mark E. J. Woolhouse
  4. Veterinary Clinical Studies, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK

    • Darren J. Shaw
  5. Cambridge Infectious Diseases Consortium, Centre for Veterinary Science, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK

    • Rob Deardon
  6. Center for Infectious Diseases Dynamics, Biology Department 208, Mueller Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA

    • Bryan T. Grenfell
  7. Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA

    • Bryan T. Grenfell


  1. Search for Michael J. Tildesley in:

  2. Search for Nicholas J. Savill in:

  3. Search for Darren J. Shaw in:

  4. Search for Rob Deardon in:

  5. Search for Stephen P. Brooks in:

  6. Search for Mark E. J. Woolhouse in:

  7. Search for Bryan T. Grenfell in:

  8. Search for Matt J. Keeling in:

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at npg.nature.com/reprintsandpermissions. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matt J. Keeling.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Notes

    This file provides extra details of model formalism and parameterisation, the robustness of optimal outside-in ring vaccination strategies, and a comparison of shortest-distance and outside-in prioritisation strategies.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.