
The European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy outline the European Union's strategy to sustainably address growing global food demand. The European Commission's guidelines for sustainable aquaculture by 2030 emphasize the sector's crucial role in this goal, particularly by promoting the use of alternative raw materials in aquafeeds to reduce reliance on fishmeal and help preserve wild fish stocks. Insects and their ability to recover nutrients from human and animal waste represent a circular alternative nutrient source that could be integrated into aquafeeds. Several obstacles still exist for adopting insect-based feeds in aquaculture, and one is represented by the consumer's acceptance, especially in Western societies. Since data regarding consumer acceptance of indirect entomophagy is still lacking, the idea of this study stems from the intention to contribute knowledge on this issue. A multivariate analysis method was used on a sample of 2426 consumers, and it allowed the identification of three groups of consumers. In general, consumers lack interest in the sustainability aspects of aquaculture production, and thus in the consumption of aquaculture productions fed with insect meal emerged, highlighting the lack of understanding of the relevance of shifting from the linear models to a circular economy approach in the aquaculture sector. The effect of information on the potential improvement of sustainability in the sector, and thus on the benefits of introducing insect meal, promoted an average 15% increase in each group to purchase these products. These results confirm the need to promote knowledge and information systems in Italy to build the so-called blue economy.
Citation: Emanuele Dolfi, Margherita Masi, Ernesto Simone Marrocco, Gizem Yeter, Martina Magnani, Yari Vecchio, Alessio Bonaldo, Felice Adinolfi. Indirect entomophagy: Consumer willingness to pay toward fish fed with insect-based feed[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2025, 10(2): 266-292. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025014
[1] | Ali Moussaoui, El Hadi Zerga . Transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in Algeria: The impact of physical distancing and face masks. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 816-827. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020063 |
[2] | Ahmed A Mohsen, Hassan Fadhil AL-Husseiny, Xueyong Zhou, Khalid Hattaf . Global stability of COVID-19 model involving the quarantine strategy and media coverage effects. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 587-605. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020047 |
[3] | Srikanth Umakanthan, Anuradha Chauhan, Madan Mohan Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Maryann M Bukelo, Vijay Kumar Chattu . COVID-19 pandemic containment in the Caribbean Region: A review of case-management and public health strategies. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(4): 665-681. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021053 |
[4] | Yasir Rehman, Nadia Rehman . Association of climatic factors with COVID-19 in Pakistan. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 854-868. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020066 |
[5] | Muhammad Farman, Muhammad Azeem, M. O. Ahmad . Analysis of COVID-19 epidemic model with sumudu transform. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 316-330. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022022 |
[6] | Musyoka Kinyili, Justin B Munyakazi, Abdulaziz YA Mukhtar . Mathematical modeling and impact analysis of the use of COVID Alert SA app. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(1): 106-128. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022009 |
[7] | Carmen Lok Tung Ho, Peter Oligbu, Olakunle Ojubolamo, Muhammad Pervaiz, Godwin Oligbu . Clinical Characteristics of Children with COVID-19. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(2): 258-273. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020022 |
[8] | Clemens Drenowatz, Gerson Ferrari, Klaus Greier, Sitong Chen, Franz Hinterkörner . Physical fitness in Austrian elementary school children prior to and post-COVID-19. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(2): 480-495. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023034 |
[9] | Samer A Kharroubi, Marwa Diab-El-Harake . Sex differences in COVID-19 mortality: A large US-based cohort study (2020–2022). AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(3): 886-904. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024045 |
[10] | Pamila Sadeeka Adikari, KGRV Pathirathna, WKWS Kumarawansa, PD Koggalage . Role of MOH as a grassroots public health manager in preparedness and response for COVID-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 606-619. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020048 |
The European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy outline the European Union's strategy to sustainably address growing global food demand. The European Commission's guidelines for sustainable aquaculture by 2030 emphasize the sector's crucial role in this goal, particularly by promoting the use of alternative raw materials in aquafeeds to reduce reliance on fishmeal and help preserve wild fish stocks. Insects and their ability to recover nutrients from human and animal waste represent a circular alternative nutrient source that could be integrated into aquafeeds. Several obstacles still exist for adopting insect-based feeds in aquaculture, and one is represented by the consumer's acceptance, especially in Western societies. Since data regarding consumer acceptance of indirect entomophagy is still lacking, the idea of this study stems from the intention to contribute knowledge on this issue. A multivariate analysis method was used on a sample of 2426 consumers, and it allowed the identification of three groups of consumers. In general, consumers lack interest in the sustainability aspects of aquaculture production, and thus in the consumption of aquaculture productions fed with insect meal emerged, highlighting the lack of understanding of the relevance of shifting from the linear models to a circular economy approach in the aquaculture sector. The effect of information on the potential improvement of sustainability in the sector, and thus on the benefits of introducing insect meal, promoted an average 15% increase in each group to purchase these products. These results confirm the need to promote knowledge and information systems in Italy to build the so-called blue economy.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, China on December 2019 [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic on 11 March, 2020 [1], and it has caused enormous and serious damages to the health, medical, social and economic systems in many countries worldwide. As of 1 July, 2020, 10,357,662 people have been reported to be infected by COVID-19, and 508,055 people passed away due to COVID-19 [1].
In Japan, the first case of COVID-19 was identified on 15 January, 2020 [1]. As of 1 July, 2020, the number of total reported cases of COVID-19 in Japan has reached to 18,723 and that of total deaths is 974 [1]. In [2], the author estimated the epidemic parameters for COVID-19 in Japan by using the data from 15 January to 29 February, 2020 [1]. The estimated epidemic curves seem to fit the actual data before 20 April (see Figure 1).
The state of emergency (SOE) in Japan was first declared on 7 April, 2020 for 7 prefectures (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Sitama, Chiba, Osaka, Hyogo and Fukuoka), and it was then expanded to all 47 prefectures on 16 April, 2020. From Figure 1, we see that the daily number of newly reported cases of COVID-19 in Japan has tended to decrease since about 2 weeks passed from the first state of emergency.
In Italy, the rapid exponential growth of the daily number of newly reported cases of COVID-19 was observed in late February, 2020, and the lockdown has started from 9 March, 2020. After about 2 weeks passed from the lockdown, the daily number of newly reported cases of COVID-19 in Italy has tended to decrease as of 31 May, 2020 (see Figure 2).
As is reported in many references (see, e.g., [4]–[8]), not a few individuals infected by COVID-19 are asymptomatic. Therefore, the social distancing such as lockdown would be one of the most effective ways to control COVID-19 because it would contribute to reduce the number of contacts among undiagonosed individuals. However, the prolongation of the period of such a restrictive intervention could hugely affect the social and economic systems, its financial and psychological cost is too high.
In South Korea, COVID-19 has been successfully controlled without lockdown as of 31 May, 2020 (see Figure 3).
One of the remarkable differences between South Korea and Japan in the early stage was the proactivity for testing. As of 20 April, 2020, the total number of reported cases for COVID-19 in Japan (10,751) is almost the same as that in South Korea (10,674) [1], however, the total number of COVID-19 tests per 1,000 people in South Korea (10.98) is about 7 times larger than that in Japan (1.58) [9]. Since COVID-19 has high infectivity before symptom onset [10], testing would be one of the most effective ways to reduce the number of contacts among individuals with no symptoms. In particular, we can expect that massive testing would be less likely to affect the social and economic systems because it does not require any strong restrictions on the personal behavior. The efficacy of testing has been proved also in Taiwan, Vietnam and Hong Kong [9].
In this paper, we discuss the possible effects of social distancing and massive testing with quarantine by constructing a mathematical model, which is based on the classical SEIR epidemic model (see, e.g., [11], [12] for previous studies on the control effect for SEIR epidemic models). The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we formulate the basic asymptomatic transmission model to derive the control reproduction number Rc and the state-reproduction number. In section 3, we estimate the baseline parameters and examine the effects of social distancing and massive testing accompanied with quarantine by numerical simulation. In section 4, we briefly review the outcome of the early control strategy for COVID-19 and discuss the feasibility of the massive testing.
Our basic model is a well-known SEIR epidemic model
The linearized system at the disease free steady state for (1) is
Here it should be noted that the disease can not be eradicated by quarantine of symptomatic cases if R01 > 1. In case that R01 < 1, we can define the state-reproduction number for symptomatic infectives, denoted by T, (
Suppose that R01 < 1 and we can reduce the reproductivity of symptomatic individuals by quarantine and social distancing. Let
Even when R01 > 1, the above control strategy can work if R01 becomes less than unity by using general social distancing policy. If the social distancing policy reduces the basic reproduction number R0 to (1 −r) R0 and the reproductivity of asymptomatic case become subcritical; (1 − r) R01 < 1, the control state-reproduction number for symptomatic infectives associated with the reduction proportion r ∈ (0,1) is
Next here we consider a situation that susceptibles and infecteds are all assumed to be exposed to massive testing (PCR test) with testing rate k followed by case isolation. Let p ∈ (0,1) be the sensitivity of the test, and q ∈ (0,1) be the specificity of the test. Suppose that if the test reaction is positive, individuales are quarantined, no matter whether the reaction is pseudo or not. Let Q be the quaratined population. We assume that the quarantined individuals are excluded from the contact process. Then under the massive testing and quarantine strategy, the total dynamics is described as follows (see also
Note that S is monotone decreasing and E, I → 0 as t → +∞8 in both of models (1) and (12). That is, similar to the classical Kermack-McKendrick model without demography [3], there is no endemic steady state and the solution always converges to the disease-free steady state.
Let the unit time be 1 day. We set the average incubation period 1/ε to be 5 days [14]–[16], the average infectious period 1/γ to be 10 days [14], [17] and the average quarantine period 1/η to be 14 days [18]. That is, ε = 1/5 = 0.2, γ = 1/10 = 0.1 and η = 1/14 ≈ 0.07. We set the sensitivity p and the specificity q for testing to be 0.7 [19], [20] and 0.99 [20], respectively. Based on [2], we assume that the basic reproduction number in Japan is R0 = 2.6 (95%CI, 2.4–2.8), where CI denotes the credible interval.
In
Symbol | Description | Value | Reference |
β1 | Asymptomatic infection rate | 0.23 (95%CI, 0.21–0.25) | [15] |
β2 | Symptomatic infection rate | 0.15 (95%CI, 0.13–0.16) | [15] |
p | Sensitivity | 0.7 | [19], [20] |
q | Specificity | 0.99 | [20] |
1/ε | Average incubation period | 5 | [14]–[16] |
1/γ | Average infectious period | 10 | [14], [17] |
1/η | Average quarantine period | 14 | [18] |
R0 | Basic reproduction number | 2.6 (95%CI, 2.4–2.8) | [2] |
R01 | Reproduction number for asymptomatic infection | 0.44 R0 | [10] |
R02 | Reproduction number for symptomatic infection | 0.56 R0 | [10] |
r, u | Reduction proportion | 0–1 | - |
Tr | Control state-reproduction number | (see Figure 6) | [10] |
qr | Critical reduction ratio | (see Figure 6) | [11] |
Rc | Control reproduction number | (see Figure 7) | [13] |
h(t) | Positive predictive value | (see Figure 11) | [17] |
We first consider the basic asymptomatic transmission model (1). From Table 1, we see that R01 = 0.44 R0 ≈ 1.14 (95%CI, 1.06–1.23) > 1. Hence, as stated in Section 2.2, we can not eradicate the disease only by quarantining symptomatic individuals. The control state-reproduction number Tr and the critical reduction ratio qr under the social distancing policy that reduces R0 to (1 – r)R0, for 0 ≤ r ≤ 1 are plotted in Figure 6.
Figure 6 suggests us that if the social distancing leads to about 60% reduction of the contact rates (r = 0.6), then the disease can be eradicated without extra quarantine measure for symptomatic individuals. Moreover, it also suggests that even if the social distancing leads to relatively mild reduction of the contact rates, the disease can be eradicated with sufficient quarantine of symptomatic individuals. For instance, if r = 0.3 (30% reduction of the contact rates by social distancing), then qr = 0.80 (95%CI, 0.73–0.87), which implies that 80% reduction of the symptomatic individuals' contact rate by massive testing and quarantine could result in the eradication of the disease. Note that detection and quarantine of symptomatic individuals would be much easier than that of asymptomatic individuals. Thus, qr = 0.80 might not be an unrealistic goal.
We next change our focus from the asymptomatic transmission model (1) to the testing and quarantine model (12). We investigate the effect of each intervention strategy by observing the sensitivity of Rc, which is defined by (13). First, we consider a quarantine of symptomatic individuals that results in reducing the symptomatic infection rate β2 to (1 − u)β2, where 0 ≤ u ≤ 1. In this case, the control reproduction number Rc decreases linearly with increasing u, however, Rc < 1 is not attained even if all symptomatic individuals are successfully quarantined (see Figure 7 (a)).
Next, we consider a social-distancing that results in reducing the infection rates βi to (1 − r)βi, where i = 1, 2 and 0 ≤ r ≤ 1. In this case, the control reproduction number Rc decreases linearly with increasing r, and Rc < 1 is attained for about 60% (r = 0.6) reduction of the infection rates (see Figure 7 (b)). This result is consistent with the result in Section 3.2, Figure 6 (a).
Finally, we consider a massive testing with quarantine that results in increasing the testing rate k. In this case, Rc is monotone decreasing and convex downward for 0 ≤ k ≤ 1, and Rc < 1 is attained for about k = 0.2 (see Figure 7 (c)). Note that Rc is highly sensitive for small k since it is convex downward. This implies that the increasement of the testing rate would be an effective strategy to control the disease especially in countries with an originally low level of testing rate such as Japan.
We next observe the epidemic curves of model (12) under each intervention. We assume that one infective individual is confirmed in Japan at t = 0 (15 January, 2020) and, for simplicity, there was no exposed, removed and quarantined individuals at t = 0. That is,
From Figure 8, we see that 40% reduction of the infection rates (r = 0.4) results in the drastic reduction of the epidemic size. However, we have to keep such a social distancing during the full period and it could largely affect the social and economic systems. Moreover, the recurrence of the epidemic could possibly occur if we stop the intervention on the way (see also Section 3.5).
The epidemic curves under the massive testing and quarantine are displayed in Figure 9.
We see from Figure 9 that increasing k up to 0.1 is sufficient for drastically reducing the infective population within this year. Since massive testing and quarantine would less affect the social and economic systems, to keep them for a long term could be one of the effective and realistic strategies.
We next consider the possibility of the recurrence of the epidemic in Japan after the social distancing, which started when the state of emerngency (SOE) was declared on 7 April, 2020. As in the previous subsection, we regard t = 0 as 15 January, 2020 and the initial condition is given by (16). We assume that the infection rates βi (i = 1,2) are reduced to (1 – r)βi (i = 1,2) with r = 0.8 (80% reduction of the contact rate, which was recommended by the Japanese government at April) during the period of social distancing, which starts from t = 83 (7 April, 2020) to some planned date t* > 83.
First, we assume that the SOE is lifted on the originally planned date 6 May, 2020, that is, t* = 112. In this case, the exponential growth of the infective population I starts again after the lifting of SOE (see Figure 10 (a)).
Next, we assume that the SOE is lifted on the extended date 25 May, 2020, that is, t* = 131. Similar to the previous case, the exponential growth of the infected population I starts again after the lifting of SOE (see Figure 10 (b)).
From Figure 10, we can conjecture that the recurrence of the COVID-19 epidemic after the lifting of SOE is fully possible in Japan if the infection rates return to the original level after the lifting. To avoid this bad scenario, we should keep appropriate reduction of the contact rates even after the lifting of SOE and infected individuals must be tested and quarantined effectively, otherwise the second epidemic wave might cause a long-term damage to the social and economic systems.
As is usually pointed out as a weak point of testing, the positive predictive value (probability that tested positive individuals are really infected) for testing is very small as long as the prevalence is low, and so a lot of tested positive individuals are in fact not infected. If we calculate the positive predictive value by using our modelling, it is given as
This fact has been used to support the early control strategy such that instead of widespread testing, symptomatic individuals and asymptomatic individuals linked to infected local groups should be mainly targeted for testing, because their prior probability of positive is high and the positive predictive value is also high, so we can avoid quarantine of pseudo-positive individuals. However, as confirmed case numbers are rising, contact tracing is more difficult, many transmission routes that don't involve observed infection clusters appear, and so community spread in the big cities will be missed. If we have entered into such explosive phase of the epidemic, as is shown above, the massive testing could be a strong tool to prevent the disease as long as the positively reacted individuals will be effectively quarantined, no matter whether the positive reaction is pseudo or not.
In our simulation above, the control reproduction number is less than unity when the testing rate k is about 0.2 (20 percent per day), which seems to be too high in realistic situation if the host population is assumed to be national level. However, if once the number of daily produced symptomatic individuals is lowered by comprehensive social distancing policy, and the risk group can be visualized, the target community size is not so large, the masssive testing would be very effective. As is shown in Figure 9, the epidemic is largely mitigated even if k is 5 percent par day, because the control reproduction number is very sensitive with respect to small k. Since total population could be seen as a superposition of smaller communities, we could understand how testing and quarantine policy might be powerful to control the infectious disease.
Finally, we would like to point out a possible extension of our model. In the asymptomatic transmission model (1), we implicitly assume that all exposed individuals will finally become symptomatic, so they are becoming observable. On the other hand, it is reported that for covid-19 virus, there are many infecteds without symptom, who are unobservable infecteds as long as they are not tested. It is our future challenge to extend the basic model to examine the effect of existence of never symptomatic individuals.
[1] | Roser M, Ritchie H (2023) How has world population growth changed over time?. Our World in Data. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time#article-citation. |
[2] | European Commission (2020) Farm to Fork Strategy. Available from: https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en#: ~: text = Further%20information-. |
[3] | FAO (2020) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en |
[4] | FAO (2022) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en |
[5] |
Adwan OMA (2017) Analyzing fish farming system in the Jordan valley comparative study. J Soc Sci (COES & RJ-JSS) 64: 827–832. https://doi.org/10.25255/jss.2017.6.4.827.832 doi: 10.25255/jss.2017.6.4.827.832
![]() |
[6] |
Tschirner M, Kloas W (2017) Increasing the sustainability of aquaculture systems: Insects as alternative protein source for fish diets. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives Sci Soc 26: 332–340. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.4.10 doi: 10.14512/gaia.26.4.10
![]() |
[7] |
Han DS, Shan X, Zhang W, et al. (2018) A revisit to fishmeal usage and associated consequences in Chinese aquaculture. Rev Aquacult 10: 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12183 doi: 10.1111/raq.12183
![]() |
[8] |
Hua K, Cobcroft JM, Cole A, et al. (2019) The future of aquatic protein: Implications for protein sources in aquaculture diets. One Earth 1: 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.018 doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.018
![]() |
[9] |
Hedén I, Targhi BF, Baardsen G, et al. (2023) Dietary replacement of fishmeal with marine proteins recovered from shrimp and herring process waters promising in Atlantic salmon aquaculture. Aquaculture 574: 739735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739735 doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739735
![]() |
[10] | Gasco L, Gai F, Maricchiolo G, et al. (2018) Fishmeal alternative protein sources for aquaculture feeds. In: Gasco L, Gai F, Maricchiolo G, et al., Feeds for the Aquaculture Sector: Current Situation and Alternative Sources, Cham: Springer, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77941-6_1 |
[11] |
van Riel A, Nederlof MAJ, Chary K, et al. (2023) Feed‐food competition in global aquaculture: Current trends and prospects. Rev Aquacult 15: 1142–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12804 doi: 10.1111/raq.12804
![]() |
[12] |
Jensen H, Elleby C, Domínguez IP, et al. (2021) Insect-based protein feed: From fork to farm. J Insects Food Feed 7: 1219-1233. https://doi.org/10.3920/jiff2021.0007 doi: 10.3920/jiff2021.0007
![]() |
[13] |
Belperio S, Cattaneo A, Nannoni E, et al. (2024) Assessing substrate utilization and bioconversion efficiency of black soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae: Effect of diet composition on growth and development temperature. Animals 14: 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14091340 doi: 10.3390/ani14091340
![]() |
[14] |
Masi M, Adinolfi F, Marrocco ES, et al. (2025) A circular transition model for the European aquaculture sector. Aquaculture 596: 741819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741819 doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741819
![]() |
[15] |
Cadinu LA, Barra P, Torre F, et al. (2020) Insect rearing: Potential, challenges, and circularity. Sustainability 12: 4567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114567 doi: 10.3390/su12114567
![]() |
[16] |
Tran HQ, Nguyen TT, Prokešová M, et al. (2022) Systematic review and meta‐analysis of production performance of aquaculture species fed dietary insect meals. Rev Aquacult 14: 1637–1655. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12666 doi: 10.1111/raq.12666
![]() |
[17] | Pulina P, Arru B, Madau FA, et al. (2018) Insect meal in the fish diet and feeding cost: First economic simulations on European sea bass farming by a case study in Italy. 2018 Conference (July 28-August), Vancouver, British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.275929 |
[18] |
Henry M, Gasco L, Piccolo G, et al. (2015) Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: Past and future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 203: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.03.001 doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.03.001
![]() |
[19] | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) (2021) An overview of the European market of insects as feed. Available from: https://ipiff.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Apr-27-2021-IPIFF_The-European-market-of-insects-as-feed.pdf. |
[20] |
Hartmann C, Shi J, Giusto A, et al. (2015) The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Qual Preference 44: 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.013 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.013
![]() |
[21] |
Verbeke W (2015) Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual Preference 39: 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.008
![]() |
[22] |
Hartmann C, Siegrist M (2016) Becoming an insectivore: Results of an experiment. Food Qual Preference 51: 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.003
![]() |
[23] |
Kouřimská L, Adámková A (2016) Nutritional and sensory quality of edible insects. NFS J 4: 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nfs.2016.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.nfs.2016.07.001
![]() |
[24] |
Imathiu S (2020) Benefits and food safety concerns associated with consumption of edible insects. NFS J 18: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nfs.2019.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.nfs.2019.11.002
![]() |
[25] |
Tunca S, Budhathoki M, Brunsø K (2024) European consumers' intention to buy sustainable aquaculture products: An exploratory study. Sustainable Prod Consumption 50: 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.021 doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.021
![]() |
[26] | Gasco L, Biasato I, Dabbou S, et al. (2019) Quality and consumer acceptance of products from insect-fed animals. In: Sogari G, Mora C, Menozziet D, et al. (Eds.), Edible Insects in the Food Sector: Methods, Current Applications and Perspectives, Cham: Springer Nature, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22522-3_6 |
[27] |
Mancini S, Sogari G, Espinosa Diaz S, et al. (2022) Exploring the future of edible insects in Europe. Foods 11: 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030455 doi: 10.3390/foods11030455
![]() |
[28] | Sogari G, Liu A, Li J (2019) Understanding edible insects as food in Western and Eastern societies. In: Bogueva D, Marinova D, Raphaely T, et al. (Eds.), Environmental, Health, and Business Opportunities in the New Meat Alternatives Market, Hershey (PA): IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 166–181. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7350-0.ch009 |
[29] |
Feng Y, Zhao M, Ding WF, et al. (2020) Overview of edible insect resources and common species utilisation in China. J Insects Food Feed 6: 13–26. https://doi.org/10.3920/jiff2019.0022 doi: 10.3920/jiff2019.0022
![]() |
[30] |
Sogari G, Riccioli F, Moruzzo R, et al. (2023) Engaging in entomophagy: The role of food neophobia and disgust between insect and non-insect eaters. Food Qual Preference 104: 104764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104764 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104764
![]() |
[31] |
Stone H, FitzGibbon L, Millan E, et al. (2022) Curious to eat insects? Curiosity as a key predictor of willingness to try novel food. Appetite 168: 105790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105790 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105790
![]() |
[32] |
Rozin P, Fallon AE (1987) A perspective on disgust. Psychol Rev 94: 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.94.1.23 doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.94.1.23
![]() |
[33] |
Curtis V (2011) Why disgust matters. Philos Trans R Soc, B 366: 3478–3490. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0165 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0165
![]() |
[34] |
Szendrő K, Nagy MZ, Tóth K (2020) Consumer acceptance of meat from animals reared on insect meal as feed. Animals 10: 1312. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081312 doi: 10.3390/ani10081312
![]() |
[35] |
Baldi L, Mancuso T, Peri M, et al. (2021) Consumer attitude and acceptance toward fish fed with insects: A focus on the new generations. J Insects Food Feed 8: 1249–1263. https://doi.org/10.3920/jiff2021.0109 doi: 10.3920/jiff2021.0109
![]() |
[36] |
Magnani M, Claret A, Gisbert E, et al. (2023) Consumer expectation and perception of farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fed with insect meal (Tenebrio molitor). Foods 12: 4356. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12234356 doi: 10.3390/foods12234356
![]() |
[37] |
Popoff M, MacLeod M, Leschen W (2017) Attitudes towards the use of insect-derived materials in Scottish salmon feeds. J Insects Food Feed 3: 131–138. https://doi.org/10.3920/jiff2016.0032 doi: 10.3920/jiff2016.0032
![]() |
[38] |
Profeta A, Hamm U (2018) Consumers' expectations and willingness‐to‐pay for local animal products produced with local feed. Int J Food Sci Technol 54: 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13933 doi: 10.1111/ijfs.13933
![]() |
[39] |
Pakseresht A, Vidaković A, Frewer LJ (2023) Factors affecting consumers' evaluation of food derived from animals fed insect meal: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci Technol 138: 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.05.018 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2023.05.018
![]() |
[40] | PROteINSECT white paper (2016) Available from: https://www.proteinsect.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/press/proteinsect-whitepaper-2016.pdf. |
[41] | Commission regulation (EU) 2017/893 (2017) Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri = CELEX: 32017R0893. |
[42] |
Mancuso T, Baldi L, Gasco L (2016) An empirical study on consumer acceptance of farmed fish fed on insect meals: The Italian case. Aquacult Int 24: 1489–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-016-0007-z doi: 10.1007/s10499-016-0007-z
![]() |
[43] |
Laureati M, Proserpio C, Jucker C, et al. (2016) New sustainable protein sources: Consumers' willingness to adopt insects as feed and food. Ital J Food Sci 28: 652–668. https://doi.org/10.14674/1120-1770/ijfs.v476 doi: 10.14674/1120-1770/ijfs.v476
![]() |
[44] |
Kostecka J, Konieczna K, Cunha L (2017) Evaluation of insect-based food acceptance by representatives of polish consumers in the context of natural resources processing retardation. J Ecol Eng 18: 166–174. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/68301 doi: 10.12911/22998993/68301
![]() |
[45] |
Ankamah-Yeboah I, Jacobsen JB, Olsen SB (2018) Innovating out of the fishmeal trap. Br Food J 120: 2395-2410. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-11-2017-0604 doi: 10.1108/bfj-11-2017-0604
![]() |
[46] |
Bazoche P, Poret S (2020) Acceptability of insects in animal feed: A survey of French consumers. J Consum Behav 20: 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1845 doi: 10.1002/cb.1845
![]() |
[47] |
Giotis T, Drichoutis AC (2021) Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for direct and indirect entomophagy. Q Open 1: qoab015. https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoab015 doi: 10.1093/qopen/qoab015
![]() |
[48] |
Arru B, Furesi R, Pulina P, et al. (2022) Price sensitivity of fish fed with insect meal: An analysis on Italian consumers. Sustainability 14: 6657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116657 doi: 10.3390/su14116657
![]() |
[49] |
Ferrer Llagostera P, Kallas Z, Reig L, et al. (2019) The use of insect meal as a sustainable feeding alternative in aquaculture: Current situation, Spanish consumers' perceptions and willingness to pay. J Cleaner Prod 229: 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.012
![]() |
[50] |
Ranga L, Noci F, Vale AP, et al. (2023) Insect-based feed acceptance amongst consumers and farmers in Ireland: A pilot study. Sustainability 15: 11006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411006 doi: 10.3390/su151411006
![]() |
[51] |
Baldi L, Trentinaglia MT, Peri M, et al. (2023) Nudging the acceptance of insects-fed farmed fish among mature consumers. Aquacult Econ Manage 28: 308–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2023.2265875 doi: 10.1080/13657305.2023.2265875
![]() |
[52] |
Roccatello R, Endrizzi I, Aprea E, et al. (2024) Insect-based feed in aquaculture: A consumer attitudes study. Aquaculture 582: 740512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.740512 doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.740512
![]() |
[53] |
La Barbera F, Verneau F, Videbæk PN, et al. (2020) A self-report measure of attitudes toward the eating of insects: Construction and validation of the Entomophagy Attitude Questionnaire. Food Qual Preference 79: 103757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103757 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103757
![]() |
[54] |
Hofstetter R, Miller KM, Krohmer H, et al. (2020) A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay. Int J of Res Mark 38: 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.006
![]() |
[55] | European Commission (2023) Eurostat regional yearbook. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/606702 |
[56] |
Maravelakis P (2019) The use of statistics in social sciences. J Humanit Appl Soc Sci 1: 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhass-08-2019-0038 doi: 10.1108/jhass-08-2019-0038
![]() |
[57] |
Sacchettini G, Castellini G, Graffigna G, et al. (2021) Assessing consumers' attitudes, expectations and intentions towards health and sustainability regarding seafood consumption in Italy. Sci Total Environ 789: 148049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148049 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148049
![]() |
[58] |
Masi M, Di Pasquale J, Vecchio Y, et al. (2022) A cross-sectional study in Mediterranean European countries to support stakeholders in addressing future market demands: Consumption of farmed fish products. Aquacult Rep 24: 101133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101133 doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101133
![]() |
[59] |
Bimbo F, Viscecchia R, De Devitiis B, et al. (2022) How do Italian consumers value sustainable certifications on fish?—An explorative analysis. Sustainability 14: 3654. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063654 doi: 10.3390/su14063654
![]() |
[60] |
Saidi A, Sacchi G, Cavallo C, et al. (2022) Drivers of fish choice: An exploratory analysis in Mediterranean countries. Agric Food Econ 10: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00237-4 doi: 10.1186/s40100-022-00237-4
![]() |
[61] |
Verbeke W, Vackier I (2005) Individual determinants of fish consumption: Application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 44: 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006
![]() |
[62] |
Samoggia A, Castellini A (2017) Health-orientation and socio-demographic characteristics as determinants of fish consumption. J Int Food Agribusiness Mark 30: 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2017.1403986 doi: 10.1080/08974438.2017.1403986
![]() |
[63] |
Birch D, Lawley M (2012) Buying seafood: Understanding barriers to purchase across consumption segments. Food Qual Preference 26: 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.03.004
![]() |
[64] |
Neale EP, Nolan-Clark D, Probst YC, et al. (2012) Comparing attitudes to fish consumption between clinical trial participants and non-trial individuals. Nutr Diet 69: 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2012.01585.x doi: 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2012.01585.x
![]() |
[65] |
Jabs J, Devine CM, Bisogni CA, et al. (2007) Trying to find the quickest way: Employed mothers' constructions of time for food. J Nutr Educ Behav 39: 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2006.08.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2006.08.011
![]() |
[66] |
Reig L, Escobar C, Carrassón M, et al. (2019) Aquaculture perceptions in the Barcelona metropolitan area from fish and seafood wholesalers, fishmongers, and consumers. Aquaculture 510: 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.05.066 doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.05.066
![]() |
[67] |
López-Mas L, Claret A, Reinders MJ, et al. (2021) Farmed or wild fish? Segmenting European consumers based on their beliefs. Aquaculture 532: 735992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735992 doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735992
![]() |
[68] |
Claret A, Guerrero L, Ginés R, et al. (2014) Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish. Appetite 79: 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.031 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.031
![]() |
[69] |
Hwang K, Kim H (2016) Are ethical consumers happy? Effects of ethical consumers' motivations based on empathy versus self-orientation on their happiness. J Bus Ethics 151: 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3236-1 doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3236-1
![]() |
[70] |
Ganglmair-Wooliscroft A, Wooliscroft B (2017) Well-being and everyday ethical consumption. J Happiness Stud 20: 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9944-0 doi: 10.1007/s10902-017-9944-0
![]() |
[71] |
Desai K, Tapas P, Paliwal M (2024) Evaluating the effect of values influencing the choice of organic foods. Environ Dev Sustain 17: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04836-7 doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04836-7
![]() |
[72] | Tan HSG, House J (2018) Consumer acceptance of insects as food: Integrating psychological and socio-cultural perspectives. In: Halloran A, Flore R, Vantomme P, et al. (Eds.), Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems, Cham: Springer, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74011-9_23 |
[73] |
Hamerman EJ (2016) Cooking and disgust sensitivity influence preference for attending insect-based food events. Appetite 96: 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.029 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.029
![]() |
[74] |
Orsi L, Voege LL, Stranieri S (2019) Eating edible insects as sustainable food? Exploring the determinants of consumer acceptance in Germany. Food Res Int 125: 108573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108573 doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108573
![]() |
[75] |
Caparros-Megido R, Gierts C, Blecker C, et al. (2016) Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Qual Preference 52: 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004
![]() |
[76] |
Roma R, Ottomano Palmisano G, De Boni A (2020) Insects as novel food: A consumer attitude analysis through the dominance-based rough set approach. Foods 9: 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9040387 doi: 10.3390/foods9040387
![]() |
[77] |
Tunca S, Budhathoki M, Brunsø K (2024) European consumers' intention to buy sustainable aquaculture products: An exploratory study. Sustain Prod Consum 50: 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.021 doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.021
![]() |
[78] | Klingemann W, Kim J, Füller KD (2022) Willingness to pay. In: Homburg C, Klarmann M, Vomberg A (Eds.), Handbook of Market Research: Springer, 969–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_35 |
[79] |
Dagevos H, Taufik D (2023) Eating full circle: Exploring consumers' sympathy for circularity in entomophagy acceptance. Food Qual Preference 105: 104760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104760 doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104760
![]() |
[80] |
Bass DA, McFadden BR, Messer KD (2021) A case for measuring negative willingness to pay for consumer goods. Food Policy 104: 102126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102126 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102126
![]() |
[81] |
Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8: 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401
![]() |
[82] |
Yeter G, Vecchio Y, Masi M (2025) Circular consumption in agrifood to become sustainable: A semisystematic review. Circ Econ Sustain 2025: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00464-5 doi: 10.1007/s43615-024-00464-5
![]() |
1. | Manuel De la Sen, Asier Ibeas, Leonid Shaikhet, On a Sir Epidemic Model for the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Logistic Equation, 2020, 2020, 1607-887X, 1, 10.1155/2020/1382870 | |
2. | Manuel De la Sen, Asier Ibeas, Raul Nistal, Ya Jia, About Partial Reachability Issues in an SEIR Epidemic Model and Related Infectious Disease Tracking in Finite Time under Vaccination and Treatment Controls, 2021, 2021, 1607-887X, 1, 10.1155/2021/5556897 | |
3. | Manuel De la Sen, Asier Ibeas, On a Controlled Se(Is)(Ih)(Iicu)AR Epidemic Model with Output Controllability Issues to Satisfy Hospital Constraints on Hospitalized Patients, 2020, 13, 1999-4893, 322, 10.3390/a13120322 | |
4. | M. De la Sen, A. Ibeas, On an SE(Is)(Ih)AR epidemic model with combined vaccination and antiviral controls for COVID-19 pandemic, 2021, 2021, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-021-03248-5 | |
5. | Manuel De la Sen, Asier Ibeas, Ravi P. Agarwal, On Confinement and Quarantine Concerns on an SEIAR Epidemic Model with Simulated Parameterizations for the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020, 12, 2073-8994, 1646, 10.3390/sym12101646 | |
6. | Muhammad Farman, Muhammad Aslam, Ali Akgül, Aqeel Ahmad, Modeling of fractional‐order COVID‐19 epidemic model with quarantine and social distancing, 2021, 0170-4214, 10.1002/mma.7360 | |
7. | Kazuki Shimizu, Toshikazu Kuniya, Yasuharu Tokuda, Modeling population‐wide testing of SARS‐CoV‐2 for containing COVID‐19 pandemic in Okinawa, Japan, 2021, 2189-7948, 10.1002/jgf2.439 | |
8. | Afschin Gandjour, Benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 self-tests from a consumer’s perspective, 2022, 22, 1472-6963, 10.1186/s12913-021-07277-4 | |
9. | Alberto d’Onofrio, Piero Manfredi, Mimmo Iannelli, Dynamics of partially mitigated multi-phasic epidemics at low susceptible depletion: phases of COVID-19 control in Italy as case study, 2021, 340, 00255564, 108671, 10.1016/j.mbs.2021.108671 | |
10. | Luz M. Garcini, Tommy Tam Pham, Arlynn M. Ambriz, Sarah Lill, Joel Tsevat, COVID‐19 diagnostic testing among underserved Latino communities: Barriers and facilitators, 2022, 30, 0966-0410, 10.1111/hsc.13621 | |
11. | Manoj Kumar, Syed Abbas, Analysis of steady state solutions to an age structured SEQIR model with optimal vaccination, 2022, 45, 0170-4214, 10718, 10.1002/mma.8414 | |
12. | Keisuke Kondo, Simulating the impacts of interregional mobility restriction on the spatial spread of COVID-19 in Japan, 2021, 11, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-021-97170-1 | |
13. | Omid Khosravizadeh, Bahman Ahadinezhad, Aisa Maleki, Zahra Najafpour, Rohollah Golmohammadi, Social distance capacity to control the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review on time series analysis, 2022, 33, 09246479, 5, 10.3233/JRS-210037 | |
14. | Manuel De la Sen, Asier Ibeas, Aitor Garrido, On a new SEIRDE o I o epidemic model eventually initiated from outside with delayed re-susceptibility and vaccination and treatment feedback controls, 2021, 96, 0031-8949, 095002, 10.1088/1402-4896/ac018c | |
15. | Mansoureh Yari Eili, Jalal Rezaeenour, An approach based on process mining to assess the quarantine strategies' effect in reducing the COVID-19 spread, 2022, 0737-8831, 10.1108/LHT-01-2022-0062 | |
16. | Fahim Tasneema Azad, Robert W. Dodge, Allen M. Varghese, Jaejin Lee, Giulia Pedrielli, K. Selçuk Candan, Gerardo Chowell-Puente, SIRTEM: Spatially Informed Rapid Testing for Epidemic Modeling and Response to COVID-19, 2022, 8, 2374-0353, 1, 10.1145/3555310 | |
17. | Ritika Jain, Tirtha Chatterjee, Effect of testing and social distancing measures on COVID ‐19 deaths in India: Role of pre‐existing socio‐economic factors , 2022, 1472-3891, 10.1002/pa.2828 | |
18. | Beata Gavurova, Viera Ivankova, Martin Rigelsky, Zdenek Caha, Tawfik Mudarri, Perception of COVID-19 Testing in the Entire Population, 2022, 10, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2022.757065 | |
19. | Q. Sun, T. Miyoshi, S. Richard, Analysis of COVID-19 in Japan with extended SEIR model and ensemble Kalman filter, 2023, 419, 03770427, 114772, 10.1016/j.cam.2022.114772 | |
20. | Toshikazu Kuniya, Structure of epidemic models: toward further applications in economics, 2021, 72, 1352-4739, 581, 10.1007/s42973-021-00094-8 | |
21. | Makoto Koizumi, Motoaki Utamura, Seiichi Kirikami, Infection spread simulation technology in a mixed state of multi variant viruses, 2021, 9, 2327-8994, 17, 10.3934/publichealth.2022002 | |
22. | Akira Watanabe, Hiroyuki Matsuda, Effectiveness of feedback control and the trade-off between death by COVID-19 and costs of countermeasures, 2022, 1386-9620, 10.1007/s10729-022-09617-0 | |
23. | Beáta Gavurová, Martin Rigelský, Perception of testing for COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic in Slovakia with emphasis on population age groups, 2022, 30, 12107778, 93, 10.21101/cejph.a7013 | |
24. | Nuri Ma, Weiyuan Ma, Zhiming Li, Multi-Model Selection and Analysis for COVID-19, 2021, 5, 2504-3110, 120, 10.3390/fractalfract5030120 | |
25. | Yoav Kolumbus, Noam Nisan, On the effectiveness of tracking and testing in SEIR models for improving health vs. economy trade-offs, 2021, 11, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-021-95415-7 | |
26. | Tomasz Piasecki, Piotr B. Mucha, Magdalena Rosińska, Daniel Becker, On limits of contact tracing in epidemic control, 2021, 16, 1932-6203, e0256180, 10.1371/journal.pone.0256180 | |
27. | Lijun Pei, Dongqing Liu, Long-term prediction of the COVID-19 epidemics induced by Omicron-virus in China based on a novel non-autonomous delayed SIR model, 2023, 56, 1751-8113, 235601, 10.1088/1751-8121/acd233 | |
28. | Emily Gill, Zora Hall, Lorna E. Thorpe, Natasha J. Williams, Elle Anastasiou, Stefanie Bendik, Malcolm Punter, Jeremy Reiss, Donna Shelley, Marie Bragg, COVID-19 testing experiences and attitudes among young adults and socially isolated older adults living in public housing, New York City (2022), 2025, 13, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1484473 |
Symbol | Description | Value | Reference |
β1 | Asymptomatic infection rate | 0.23 (95%CI, 0.21–0.25) | [15] |
β2 | Symptomatic infection rate | 0.15 (95%CI, 0.13–0.16) | [15] |
p | Sensitivity | 0.7 | [19], [20] |
q | Specificity | 0.99 | [20] |
1/ε | Average incubation period | 5 | [14]–[16] |
1/γ | Average infectious period | 10 | [14], [17] |
1/η | Average quarantine period | 14 | [18] |
R0 | Basic reproduction number | 2.6 (95%CI, 2.4–2.8) | [2] |
R01 | Reproduction number for asymptomatic infection | 0.44 R0 | [10] |
R02 | Reproduction number for symptomatic infection | 0.56 R0 | [10] |
r, u | Reduction proportion | 0–1 | - |
Tr | Control state-reproduction number | (see Figure 6) | [10] |
qr | Critical reduction ratio | (see Figure 6) | [11] |
Rc | Control reproduction number | (see Figure 7) | [13] |
h(t) | Positive predictive value | (see Figure 11) | [17] |
Symbol | Description | Value | Reference |
β1 | Asymptomatic infection rate | 0.23 (95%CI, 0.21–0.25) | [15] |
β2 | Symptomatic infection rate | 0.15 (95%CI, 0.13–0.16) | [15] |
p | Sensitivity | 0.7 | [19], [20] |
q | Specificity | 0.99 | [20] |
1/ε | Average incubation period | 5 | [14]–[16] |
1/γ | Average infectious period | 10 | [14], [17] |
1/η | Average quarantine period | 14 | [18] |
R0 | Basic reproduction number | 2.6 (95%CI, 2.4–2.8) | [2] |
R01 | Reproduction number for asymptomatic infection | 0.44 R0 | [10] |
R02 | Reproduction number for symptomatic infection | 0.56 R0 | [10] |
r, u | Reduction proportion | 0–1 | - |
Tr | Control state-reproduction number | (see Figure 6) | [10] |
qr | Critical reduction ratio | (see Figure 6) | [11] |
Rc | Control reproduction number | (see Figure 7) | [13] |
h(t) | Positive predictive value | (see Figure 11) | [17] |