Modeling the systemic risks of COVID-19 on the wildland firefighting workforce

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Wildfire management in the US relies on a complex nationwide network of shared resources that are allocated based on regional need. While this network bolsters firefighting capacity, it may also provide pathways for transmission of infectious diseases between fire sites. In this manuscript, we review a first attempt at building an epidemiological model adapted to the interconnected fire system, with the aims of supporting prevention and mitigation efforts along with understanding potential impacts to workforce capacity. Specifically, we developed an agent-based model of COVID-19 built on historical wildland fire assignments using detailed dispatch data from 2016–2018, which form a network of firefighters dispersed spatially and temporally across the US. We used this model to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission under several intervention scenarios including vaccination and social distancing. We found vaccination and social distancing are effective at reducing transmission at fire incidents. Under a scenario assuming High Compliance with recommended mitigations (including vaccination), infection rates, number of outbreaks, and worker days missed are effectively negligible, suggesting the recommended interventions could successfully mitigate the risk of cascading infections between fires. Under a contrasting Low Compliance scenario, it is possible for cascading outbreaks to emerge leading to relatively high numbers of worker days missed. As the model was built in 2021 before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, the modeled viral parameters and isolation/quarantine policies may have less relevance to 2022, but nevertheless underscore the importance of following basic prevention and mitigation guidance. This work could set the foundation for future modeling efforts focused on mitigating spread of infectious disease at wildland fire incidents to manage both the health of fire personnel and system capacity.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.15.21263647: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.