\(\frac {dS}{dt} = - \beta SI\)
\(\frac {dI}{dt} = \beta SI- \gamma I\)
\(\frac {dR}{dt} = \gamma I\)
\(R_0 \approx \frac{\beta}\gamma\)
\(HIT = 1 - \frac 1 R_0\) where \(R_0 \approx \frac \beta \gamma\)
\(HIT= 1-\frac 1 {R_0}^(1+{CV}^2)\)
S = Susceptible fraction at risk
I = Infected and infectious fraction
R = Removed fraction (either dead or immune)
Outbreak (transmission between people within a setting)
Epidemic (transmission between settings)
Pandemic (transmission between countries)
Endemic (endogneous) - spontaneous cases with no pattern of transmission
The SIR could be argued to be applicable to susceptible, infected and removed settings or even countries under a “metapopulation” framework ..as in (Hanski 1998)
To reproduce the classic SIR results the model can be setup with long distance links between the nodes. This ensures that the epidemic can spread throughout the whole susceptible population. The notable result of complete panmixia is the speed at which the epidemic (outbreak) rises and falls. If the population is completely susceptible at the outset the epidemic ends when the whole population has become infected and subsequently removed from the pool of susceptible through either recovery with immunity or death. Such an epidemic typically lasts weeks rather than months.
If long distance connections are removed the panmixia assumption is not met. The consequence of this is to add more structure into the spread of the epidemic. This structure may be spatial or more conceptual in nature, as the social connections may not be defined by strict geographical proximity. The outbreak now takes more time to move through the population, even with the same intrinsic transmission between linked individuals. Contact tracking and tracing would identify this form of spread and could potentially mitigate and/or supress it in the early stages.
The model can reproduce the expected result of successful repression if links are removed early on the progression of the epidemic. This is simulated by a break point in which the network is rebuilt with many fewer linkages. The outbreak declines following this measure being adopted. However, this model assumes a successful lockdown. If lockdown measures are ineffective in completely suppressing the virus the subsequent results will simply follow one of the patterns shown by any other model with population of susceptible individuals “seeded” with infection.
If a substantial proportion of the population are initially immune the epidemic can only spread if transmission between linked individuals is very high. If this is not the case then herd immunity supresses all possibility of spread early on. With high levels of “blocking” immunity a highly transmissible virus eventually finds pathways to spread to the susceptible population, but the epidemic trajectory can be slower. In many respects this hard to distinguish from the pattern produced by an effective lockdown.
If immunity is assumed to be very short lived the model can reproduce multiple waves of infection that occur after the first outbreak. To reproduce this the assumption has to be made that almost all the population that were initially infected lose their immunity in a relatively short space of time. These waves do not occur if only a minority of those infected are restored to the susceptible population, as herd immunity prevents them from re-occurring.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc895/mapchangeovertime/index.html
At a population level (census data)