Estimating the Risk of Outbreaks of COVID-19 Associated with Shore Leave by Merchant Ship Crews: Simulation Studies for a Case Country

Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely, Michael Baker, Martin Eichner
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.08.20190769

Abstract

Aim We aimed to estimate the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks in a case study COVID-free destination country, associated with shore leave for merchant ship crews.

Methods A stochastic version of the SEIR model CovidSIM v1.1, designed specifically for COVID-19 was utilised. It was populated with parameters for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, shipping characteristics, and plausible control measures.

Results When no control interventions were in place, an outbreak of COVID-19 in our case study destination country (New Zealand; NZ) was estimated to occur after a median time of 23 days (assuming a global average for source country incidence of 2.66 new infections per 1000 population per week, a crew of 20, a voyage length of 10 days, 1 day of shore leave both in NZ and abroad, and 108 port visits by international merchant ships per week). For this example the uncertainty around when outbreaks occur is wide (an outbreak occurs with 95% probability between 1 and 124 days). The combined use of a PCR test on arrival, self-reporting of symptoms with contact tracing, and mask use during shore leave, increased this median time to 1.0 year (14 days to 5.4 years). Scenario analyses found that onboard infection chains could persist for well over 4 weeks even with crews of only 5 members.

Conclusion Introduction of SARS-CoV-2 through shore leave from international shipping crews is likely, even after long voyages. The risk can be substantially mitigated by control measures such as PCR testing and mask use.

INTRODUCTION

Historically shipping has been involved in pandemic spread globally and maritime quarantine has been used as a successful control measure e.g. in the 1918 influenza pandemic.1 Maritime quarantine has even been used successfully for preventing arrival of the 2009 influenza pandemic in some island jurisdictions.2

The COVID-19 pandemic has also had an impact on maritime vessels during 2020, along with spread to people on shore. On the Diamond Princess 19% of the passengers and crew became positive with the pandemic virus (SARS-CoV-2) and there was spread to Japanese responders on shore.3 Similarly, on the Grand Princess, 17% of those tested had positive results.3 On a much smaller cruise ship with 217 passengers and crew onboard, 59% were reported to be test-positive.4 On a fishing vessel, 85% (104/122) of the crew were infected.5 In terms of merchant vessels, an outbreak on a container ship was reported as infecting 23% (5/22) of the crew.6 Other such outbreaks have been detailed in media reporting (referred to in a review7).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, border controls have been widely used to limit pandemic spread. Such border controls are particularly relevant for two types of pandemic control strategy: (i) the exclusion strategy as successfully practiced by ten Pacific island nations e.g. Samoa and Tonga;8 and (ii) the elimination strategy as used by New Zealand,9 and possibly other jurisdictions, e.g. Mainland China, Taiwan, Fiji and five states/territories in Australia.

Some of these jurisdictions have completely prohibited maritime vessels arriving at their sea ports from countries which are not COVID-19-free (e.g. the Marshall Islands have prohibited such incoming ships8). But time periods are also used e.g. a minimum of 14 days at sea before being allowed to enter the Marshall Islands,8 or 14 days plus a negative PRC test for New Zealand.10 There is also the standard international requirement for pratique whereby any “illness during the voyage” must be notified to health authorities at the destination port.11

Given this background we aimed to expand on previous modelling work (for air transport spread of COVID-1912) to determine the risk of merchant ships being the source of COVID-19 outbreaks in an otherwise COVID-19 free country.

METHODS

Model design and parameters for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

We used a stochastic SEIR type model with key compartments for: susceptible [S], exposed [E], infected [I], and recovered/removed [R]. The model is a stochastic version of CovidSIM which was developed specifically for COVID-19 (http://covidsim.eu; version 1.1). Work has been produced from previous versions of this model,12,13,14 and in two places we detail the relevant equations and their stochastic treatment.15,16 The model was built in Pascal and the computer code is available on request from the senior author (ME).

100 million simulations were run for each set of parameter values. Such a large number of simulations was necessary due to the very high probability of zero infected crew members boarding a departing merchant ship given the low assumed incidence of infection (see below). The overall framework for the processes modelled is shown in Figure 1. The parameters were based on available publications and best estimates used in the published modelling work on COVID-19 (as known to us on 27 August 2020). We assumed that 71% of infected COVID-19 cases develop clearly detectable symptoms (Table 1). Another assumption was the contagiousness in terms of the effective reproduction number (Reff) which was 3.0 among crew members on board of the ship and 2.5 in the destination country (Table 1).

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Flow diagram of the assumed movements of merchant ship crews in the model including interventions (simplified and not showing all control measures e.g. the seeking of medical attention when symptomatic in the destination country and the associated isolation of identified cases and contact tracing)

View this table:
Table 1:

Input parameters used for modelling the potential spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections via merchant shipping with the stochastic version of CovidSIM (v1.1)17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26-28,29,30,31

Shore leave in the destination country

We selected New Zealand as a case study destination country as it has previously achieved elimination of community transmission of SARS-CoV-29 and appears to be successfully controlling an outbreak (probably arising from a border control failure) in one region in September 2020. Upon arrival in this destination country, we used a period of shore leave by all the crews of one day (the median time ships are in port based on Ports of Auckland data in as, the port in New Zealand’s largest city).

Potential control measures

Are detailed in Table 2 and Figure 1 and included a PCR test on all the crews on arrival and mask use by the crews during shore leave. If any crew member tested positive then the shore leave for all that particular crew was assumed to be prohibited and therefore there was no risk of any community outbreak. If a crew member on shore leave developed and self-reported symptoms and then tested positive, this case would be isolated and this could also trigger contact tracing which was assumed to identify 80% of the infected contacts within 48 hours. Identified contacts would be isolated after a delay of one or two days.

Ongoing infection transmission in the destination country

Untraced secondary cases who were infected by crew members in the destination country, and tertiary cases who were infected by traced secondary cases before they were isolated, were assumed to roam freely for the full length of their infectious period and to potentially trigger outbreaks in the community.

Control measures assumptions

The full details on the considered control measures are given in Table 2.

View this table:
Table 2:

Control measures used and their estimated efficacy32,33,34,35,36,37,38

RESULTS

The results of the stochastic simulations indicate that if no pandemic-related maritime controls were in place, the COVID-19-free destination country (New Zealand) would quickly experience an outbreak attributed to ship arrivals. That is an outbreak after a median duration of 0.064 years (23 days) which is equivalent to a total of 355 port visits and 7100 total days of shore leave (for international 20 crew members per vessel, and one day of shore leave per port; Table 3). There is high uncertainty however, with 95% of outbreaks likely to occur between 0.0023 and 0.34 year (i.e. 1 to 124 days; Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3:

Results of the simulations without interventions and with multi-layered interventions (for a base case of 10 days at sea and 108 merchant ship visits per week, 20 crew per ship, one day of shore leave each per port visit in New Zealand (NZ), 100 million stochastic simulations were run for each set of parameters).

The median time to an outbreak would be markedly increased by obligatory PCR testing of crew members before shore leave is permitted i.e. up to 0.46 years (168 days) or after a total of 2592 port visits. Even further reduction of risk occurs when requiring face mask use during shore leave (increased median time to 1.00 years). But relatively little extra gain in risk reduction occurs from any sick crew on shore leave self-reporting symptoms and from the associated contact tracing (Table 3). Using the base case value of Reff = 2.5 in New Zealand, a single untraced infection in the community leads to an outbreak in 88.2% of cases (78.5% for Reff = 2.0). When we considered super-spreading events in the community in a scenario analysis the outbreak probability per person was actually reduced to 57.4%. This is because allowing for super-spreading events means that a smaller proportion of infected crew members transmit infection, even though those that do will typically infect more people (assuming the same overall value of Reff).

In scenario analyses, a smaller crew size reduced the outbreak risk (e.g. the median time to an outbreak would be 3.8 years for ships with a crew size of five; Table 4). The risk of outbreaks was also lower when making assumptions around lower contagiousness in the destination country (i.e. Reff lowered to 2.0). The risk remained basically unchanged if contagiousness on the ship was assumed to be higher (i.e. Reff increased to 4.0). Increasing the shore leave to either two or three days increased the risk of an outbreak (i.e. it reduced the median waiting time). If super-spreading events were considered in the destination country, this led to the same average number of untraced infections caused by crew members in New Zealand, but as each one of them had a lower risk of leading to an outbreak (see above), the overall outbreak risk was lower than in the baseline study.

View this table:
Table 4:

Results of the scenario analyses for 108 merchant ship visits per week and the full set of interventions taking place (see last line of Table 3) with 100 million stochastic simulations run for each set of parameters (for further information, see text and Table 2).

Figure 2 shows that voyage duration is a key determinant of outbreak risk in the destination country and this risk is especially high for short voyages of under a week (i.e. when infected crews taking shore leave may still be PCR test negative). This Figure also shows that it takes a long time for the onboard epidemic to “burn out” and that the outbreak risk in the destination country (when there are no controls) only starts to decline after a voyage time of three weeks, and even then declines quite slowly (Figure 2a). For a crew size of 20 the risk of community outbreaks is still increasing after four weeks of voyaging if no controls are used (Figure 2c). Interestingly, if PCR tests are implemented, the effect of longer travel durations generates results that are the inverse: the more the infection can spread on board, the more likely it will be detected. As none of the crew members is assumed to be allowed to go to shore if one is found positive, the probability that infected people entering the destination country decreases with the number of infected people on board. Adding additional interventions like wearing masks, self-reporting symptoms and doing contact tracing further improves the results, but the main effect is obtained by PCR entry screening. With the full set of interventions the median time to an outbreak increased up to 25 years (Figure 2b and 2c).

Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Median duration [log-scale in years] until a COVID-19 pandemic outbreak occurs in the destination country because of merchant ship crews taking shore leave. (a) 5, (b) 10, (c) 20 crew members per ship; 108 cargo ships arrive each week. In the country of origin, each member can pick up the infection at a rate of 0.00038 per day. Infections spreadon board with an effective reproduction number Reff of 3.0 and in NZ with Reff of 2.5. Note that a voyage duration of 1 day is not applicable to NZ. Full black curves: no interventions are taken; full grey curves: all crew members are prevented from entering the country if one of them is PCR positive upon arrival; dotted grey curves: full set of interventions as outlined in Table 3. For each combination of crew size and voyage duration, 100 million voyages were simulated.

DISCUSSION

Main findings

The results of this modelling study suggest it would only be a matter of a few weeks (specifically for the base case around 23 days for a total 355 port visits and 7100 days of shore leave) before crew from international trading maritime vessels would trigger COVID-19 pandemic outbreaks in the destination country. Fortunately, however, the risk of such outbreaks can be substantially reduced with available interventions, especially PCR testing before leaving the vessel and use of masks by the crew during shore leave. Of particular note is that even small five person crews will contribute to a risk after voyages of several weeks and this risk does not start to decline until three weeks (and even then the decline is slow).

It is likely the results for our case study country (New Zealand) are generalisable to most countries that have sea ports and maritime trade. Nevertheless, the risk could be somewhat less for some nations on a per population or per GDP basis because New Zealand’s economy is particularly trade orientated and especially sea trade orientated. That is, it has no international trade by land routes and only a small proportion by air cargo. With a population of 5 million New Zealand has 1120 port visits from vessels with an international origin per million population per year.

Study strengths and limitations

This appears to be the first modelling study to explore the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks arising from shore leave of maritime ship crews (based on our search of PubMed and preprint sites in August 2020). Another strength is that the work builds on an established model that has been used to also study air transport and other aspects of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (see Methods).

But as with all modelling there are important limitations. Some of these relate to parameters, with a particularly critical one being the daily incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the source country that the ship leaves from. We just used a global average for this incidence to account for the diverse maritime trading patterns that New Zealand has and also because the crews are also internationally diverse (often flying in from another country just prior to the ship’s departure). Nevertheless, there are likely to be highly variable risks by source country and countries that the crew come from.

Another example of parameter limitations are the Reff onboard such vessels and also the Reff for shore leave by crew. The former is likely to vary by different designs of merchant vessels (container ships vs. tankers vs. bulk carriers etc.) and also by size (e.g. it is likely that in vessels of under 3000 gross tonnage the crew are in shared sleeping rooms). However, we did not have sufficient data to model such heterogeneity. We also didn’t account for potential immunity amongst crew from past exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic virus internationally, which is bound to increase over time. Given the complexities we did not consider port calls and shore leave on route between the original departure point and the first New Zealand port of call. However, such port calls (if shore leave is taken by at least some of the crew members) could be reconceptualised as the new starting point for the voyage. We also did not model risk of transmission to port workers who might go onto arriving ships (eg, pilots and health workers conducting PCR tests), on the assumption that they would take appropriate precautions with physical distancing and use of personal protective equipment.

Possible implications for future research and policy

Future research is needed to replicate this study, e.g. using simulation models with a different structure and for a wider range of destination countries. Research could also explore the acceptability and adherence to mask use by crews on shore leave in different settings.

As detailed above, the results in Tables 2 and 3 might make some health authorities decide that the risk of allowing shore leave for crew is tolerable with control interventions such as PCR and masks in place. But for small low-income island states (e.g. the 10 nations in the Pacific that were COVID-19-free in September 2020) the risk might still be considered too high, especially if they have limited surveillance and outbreak control capacity. In these states, either all shore leave could be denied (i.e. cargo movement is performed without the crew leaving the vessel), or the ships which recently visited countries where COVID-19 transmission is occurring are completely prohibited (e.g. until a vaccine against COVID-19 is available).

Conclusions

Using simulations, we estimated the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks in COVID-19-free settings as a result of merchant ship crews taking shore leave. Our results can inform policy-maker decisions about regulations regarding shore leave for crews and the use of various control measures such as PCR testing and mask use to minimise the risks if shore leave is permitted.

Data Availability

The computer code used in the model (Pascal) is available on request from the senior author.

References

  1. 1.↵
    McLeod MA, Baker M, Wilson N, Kelly H, Kiedrynski T, Kool JL. Protective effect of maritime quarantine in South Pacific jurisdictions, 1918-19 influence pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis 2008;14:468–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Kool JL, Pavlin BI, Musto J, Dawainavesi A. Influenza surveillance in the Pacific Island countries and territories during the 2009 pandemic: an observation study. BMC Infect Dis 2013;13:6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Moriarty LF, Plucinski MM, Marston BJ, Kurbatova EV, Knust B, Murray EL, et al. Public health Responses to COVID-19 Outbreaks on Cruise Ships ‐ Worldwide, February‐March 2020. MMWR 2020; 69:347–52
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Ing AJ, Cocks C, Green JP. COVID-19:in the footsteps of Ernest Shackleton. Thorax. 2020;75:693–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Addetia A, Crawford K, Dingens A, Zhu H, Roychoudhury P, Huang M, Jerome K, Bloom J, Greninger A. Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection from SARS-CoV-2 in humans during a fishery vessel outbreak with high attack rate. medRxiv 2020;(14 August). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.20173161v1.
  6. 6.↵
    Dai Q, Hu S, Yan K, Chen Z, Chen B, Cai T, Zhang S, Zhang J, Zheng J. Reflection on SARSCoV-2 infection of container ship seafarers. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020:101787.
  7. 7.↵
    Stannard S. COVID-19 in the maritime setting: the challenges, regulations and the international response. Int Marit Health 2020;71:85–90.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Amos O. Ten countries kept out Covid. But did they win? BBC News 2020;(24 August). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53831063.
  9. 9.↵
    Baker MG, Wilson N, Anglemyer A. Successful elimination of Covid-19 transmission in New Zealand. N Engl J Med 2020;(7 August) doi:101056/NEJMc2025203 https://www.nejmorg/doi/101056/NEJMc2025203?url_ver=Z3988-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossreforg&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
  11. 11.↵
    Ministry of Health. Requirements for vessels to receive pratique (updated 5 April 2020). Wellington: Ministry of Health.
  12. 12.↵
    Wilson N, Baker M, Eichner M. Estimating the impact of control measures to prevent outbreaks of COVID-19 associated with air travel into a COVID-19-free country: A simulation modelling study. medRxiv 2020;(17 June). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.10.20127977v3.
  13. 13.↵
    Wilson N, Telfar Barnard L, Kvalsig A, Verrall A, Baker M, Schwehm M. Modelling the potential health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a hypothetical European country. medRxiv 2020;(23 March). https://medrxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2020.03.20.20039776v1.
  14. 14.↵
    Wilson N, Parry M, Verrall A, Baker M, Schwehm M, Eichner M. When can elimination of SARS-CoV-2 infection be assumed? Simulation modelling in a case study island nation. medRxiv 2020;(20 May). https://medrxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2020.05.16.20104240v1.
  15. 15.↵
    Wilson N, Telfar Barnard L, Kvalsvig A, Baker M. Potential health impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic for New Zealand if eradication fails: Report to the NZ Ministry of Health. Wellington: University of Otago Wellington. 2020; https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/report_for_moh_-_covid-19_pandemic_nz_final.pdf.
  16. 16.↵
    Wilson N, Schwehm M, Verrall A, Parry M, Baker M, Eichner M. Detecting the emergent or reemergent COVID-19 pandemic in a country: Modelling study of combined primary care and hospital surveillance. N Z Med J (in press).
  17. 17.↵
    World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Situation Report – 208. 2020;(15 August). https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports
  18. 18.↵
    United Nations. Population Division: World Population Prospects 2019 (data query result for 2020). https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/.
  19. 19.↵
    Havers FP, Reed C, Lim T, Montgomery JM, Klena JD, Hall AJ, et al. Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 Sites in the United States, March 23-May 12, 2020. JAMA Intern Med 2020.
  20. 20.↵
    Pollan M, Perez-Gomez B, Pastor-Barriuso R, Oteo J, Hernan MA, Perez-Olmeda M, Sanmartin JL, Fernandez-Garcia A, Cruz I, Fernandez de Larrea N, Molina M, Rodriguez-Cabrera F, Martin M, Merino-Amador P, Leon Paniagua J, Munoz-Montalvo JF, Blanco F, Yotti R, Group E-CS. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study. Lancet 2020.
  21. 21.↵
    Treibel T, Manisty C, Burton M, McKnight A, Lambourne J, Augusto J, Couto–Parada X, Cutino–Moguel T, Noursadeghi M, Moon J. COVID–19 PCR screening of asymptomatic healthcare workers at London hospital. Lancet 2020;395:1608–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID–19 pandemic planning scenarios. 2020;(20 May). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html.
  23. 23.↵
    WHO–China Joint Mission. Report of the WHO–China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19). 2020;(16–24 February). https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf.
  24. 24.↵
    Woelfel R, Corman V, Guggemos W, Seilmaier M, Zange S, Mueller M, Niemeyer D, Vollmar P, Rothe C, Hoelscher M, Bleicker T, Bruenink S, Schneider J, Ehmann R, Zwirglmaier K, Drosten C, Wendtner C. Clinical presentation and virological assessment ofhospitalized cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in a travel-associatedtransmission cluster. medRxiv 2020;(8 March). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20030502v1.
  25. 25.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID–19 pandemic planning scenarios. 2020;(Updated 10 July). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html.
  26. 26.↵
    Endo A, Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 Working Group, Abbott S, et al. Estimating the overdispersion in COVID-19 transmission using outbreak sizes outside China. Wellcome Open Res 2020, 5:67 https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15842.1).
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Miller D, Martin M, Harel N, Kustin T, Tirosh O, Meir M, Sorek N, Gefen–Halevi S, Amit S, Vorontsov O, Wolf D, Peretz A, Shemer–Avni Y, Roif–Kaminsky D, Kopelman N, Huppert A, Koelle K, Stern A. Full genome viral sequences inform patterns of SARS–CoV–2 spread into and within Israel. medRxiv 2020;(22 May). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.21.20104521
  28. 28.↵
    Hamner L, Dubbel P, Capron I, Ross A, Jordan A, Lee J, Lynn J, Ball A, Narwal S, Russell S, Patrick D, Leibrand H. High SARS–CoV–2 attack rate following exposure at a choir practice – skagit Country, Washington, March 2020. MMWR 2020;69:606–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Ministry of Transport. Freight Information Gathering System (FIGS) – Overseas ship visits. Table 1: Visits to New Zealand Ports [Extracted data for: 2019 Q2-Q4; 2020 Q1). https://www.transport.govt.nz/mot-resources/freight-resources/figs/overseas-ship-visits/
  30. 30.↵
    Wikipedia. Maritime transport. (Accessed: 20 August 2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_transport.
  31. 31.↵
    Ports of Auckland. Operations. [Data for: 20 August 2020]. http://www.poal.co.nz/operations/schedules/arrivals.
  32. 32.↵
    Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, Boon D, Lessler J. Variation in false-negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure. Ann Intern Med 2020;(E–publication 19 April).
  33. 33.↵
    Vienna Airport. Coronavirus PCR tests now possible at Vienna Airport. Vienna Airport 2020; https://www.viennaairport.com/pcrtest.
  34. 34.↵
    Service RF. In ‘milestone,’ FDA OKs simple, accurate coronavirus test that could cost just $5. Science 2020;(27 August). https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/milestone-fda-okssimple-accurate-coronavirus-test-could-cost-just-5?utm_campaign=news_daily_2020-08-27&et_rid=373134636&et_cid=3461836.
  35. 35.↵
    Chu D, Akl E, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann H, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020;(E–publication 1 June).
  36. 36.↵
  37. 37.↵
    Star News. Auckland lockdown extended, rest of NZ to stay at level 2. Star News 2020;(24 August) https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-national/auckland-lockdown-extended-rest-nzstay-level-2.
  38. 38.↵
    Ministry of Health. 7 new cases of COVID-19 (Media Release); 2020;(15 August) https://www.health.govt.nz/news-media/media-releases/7-new-cases-covid-19.
Back to top
Posted September 11, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Estimating the Risk of Outbreaks of COVID-19 Associated with Shore Leave by Merchant Ship Crews: Simulation Studies for a Case Country
Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely, Michael Baker, Martin Eichner
medRxiv 2020.09.08.20190769; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.08.20190769
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area