Table 4.
Estimates of entry for the three pathways (with the current risk mitigation measures).
| Entry of rabies virus | Probability | Uncertainty | Evidence | Estimate (Uncertainty) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STRAY DOG PATHWAY | ||||
| -Probability determined by prevalence of rabies in stray dogs | Medium | Low | Government report | Very low (Medium) |
| -Probability determined by tendency of stray dogs to move | Medium | Medium | (4, 5, 22, 23) | |
| -Probability of current passive veterinary surveillance system not detecting rabid dogs in the rabies endemic areas* | Very low | Low | Expert opinion | |
| -Probability of public not reporting cases (public awareness)* | Very low | Low | Expert opinion | |
| PET DOG PATHWAY | ||||
| -Determined by prevalence of rabies in pet dogs in the endemic areas | Low | Low | Expert opinion | low (Low) |
| -Determined by frequency of pet dogs traveled to the rabies low-risk zone | Low | Low | Expert opinion | |
| -Probability of pet owners not being aware of pre-travel check-up* | Low | Low | Expert opinion | |
| -Probability of highway check posts not detecting the pets traveled without pre-check-up* | Medium | Low | Expert opinion | |
| CATTLE PATHWAY | ||||
| - Determined by prevalence of rabies in cattle in the endemic areas of Bhutan | Low | Low | (26), TAD info database | Low (Low) |
| -Determined by the number of cattle transported | Low | Low | Expert opinion | |
| -Probability of cattle not undergoing pre-travel check-up* | Low | Low | Expert opinion | |
*
Probability of entry resulting due to ineffectiveness of current mitigation measures.