1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2:
3:
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: %
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7:
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
12:
13: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
14:
15: \textwidth 16.5cm
16: \textheight 655pt
17: \parskip 0.25cm
18: \hoffset -1.3cm
19: % looks better in PS:
20: \voffset -3cm
21: % looks better in PDF:
22: %\voffset -2cm
23: %\flushbottom
24:
25: \newcommand{\nc}{\newcommand}
26: \nc{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
27: \nc{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
28: \nc{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
29: \nc{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
30: \def\DS {D\!\!\!\!/}
31: \def\A { A_\mu (x) }
32: \def\DM {\DS_{\, (\mu)}}
33: \def\O {{\cal O}}
34: \def\ts{\thinspace}
35: %\def\fpi{F_{\pi}}
36: \def\fpi{F}
37:
38:
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40: \input epsf
41: \newwrite\ffile\global\newcount\figno \global\figno=1
42: \def\writedefs{\immediate\openout\lfile=labeldefs.tmp \def\writedef##1{%
43: \immediate\write\lfile{\string\def\string##1\rightbracket}}}
44: \def\writestoppt{}\def\writedef#1{}
45: \def\figin{\epsfcheck\figin}\def\figins{\epsfcheck\figins}
46: \def\epsfcheck{\ifx\epsfbox\UnDeFiNeD
47: \message{(NO epsf.tex, FIGURES WILL BE IGNORED)}
48: \gdef\figin##1{\vskip2in}\gdef\figins##1{\hskip.5in}% blank space instead
49: \else\message{(FIGURES WILL BE INCLUDED)}%
50: \gdef\figin##1{##1}\gdef\figins##1{##1}\fi}
51: \def\figinsert{}
52: \def\ifig#1#2#3{\xdef#1{fig.~\the\figno}
53: \writedef{#1\leftbracket fig.\noexpand~\the\figno}%
54: \figinsert\figin{\centerline{#3}}\medskip\centerline{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt
55: \advance\hsize by -1truein\center\footnotesize{ Fig.~\the\figno.} #2}}
56: \bigskip\endinsert\global\advance\figno by1}
57: \def\footnotefont{}\def\endinsert{}
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59:
60: \begin{document}
61:
62: %\baselineskip 24pt
63:
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65: %%%
66: %%% TITLE PAGE
67: %%%
68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
69:
70: \title{\large{\bf Global Spread of Infectious Diseases}}
71:
72: \author{
73: S.~ Hsu$^1$\thanks{hsu@duende.uoregon.edu} ~$~ \& ~$
74: A.~ Zee$^2$\thanks{zee@itp.ucsb.edu}\\
75: \\
76: $^1$Institute of Theoretical Science, \\
77: University of Oregon, \\
78: Eugene, Oregon 97403-5203 \\ \\
79: $^2$Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, \\
80: University of California, \\
81: Santa Barbara, California 93106-4030\\
82: \\}
83:
84:
85:
86:
87: \maketitle
88:
89: %\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
90: %\put(350,380){McGill/00-04}
91: %\put(350,365){OITS-686}
92: %\put(350,350){draft \today}
93: %\end{picture}
94: \vspace{-24pt}
95:
96:
97:
98:
99: \begin{abstract}
100: We develop simple models for the global spread of infectious
101: diseases, emphasizing human mobility via air travel and the
102: variation of public health infrastructure from region to region.
103: We derive formulas relating the total and peak number of
104: infections in two countries to the rate of travel between them and
105: their respective epidemiological parameters.
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108:
109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
110: %%%
111: %%% INTRODUCTION
112: %%%
113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
114:
115: \newpage
116:
117: \section{Introduction and linear model}
118:
119: Recent outbreaks of atypical pneumonia (SARS) \cite{SARS} as well
120: as likely future epidemics and
121: pandemics of influenza \cite{Influenza} provide
122: ample motivation for the study of the global propagation of
123: infectious diseases. (For an overview of modelling of infectious
124: diseases in humans, see \cite{AM}). In this letter we construct a
125: class of simple models of this phenomena, with particular
126: attention to human mobility and the variation of public health
127: capabilities across national and regional boundaries. Spatial dynamics
128: involving the diffusion equation,
129: of the type studied in \cite{Murray} (as in, e.g., the spread of
130: rabies in fox populations), is of less interest to us than regional
131: or national variation of parameters. We treat each region as spatially
132: homogenous and focus on mobility (e.g., via air travel) as the mechanism
133: by which disease is transmitted.
134:
135:
136: The population variables in our model: $S$ = susceptibles, $I$ =
137: infected, $R$ = recovered and $D$ = deceased, are functions of time $t$
138: and of {\it discrete} geographical location labelled by an index
139: $i=1,\cdots,N$. Thus our equations describe the time evolution of a $4N$
140: dimensional vector:
141: \begin{equation}
142: \vec{x} = \left( \begin{array}{c} S_1 \\ I_1 \\ R_1 \\ D_1 \\ S_2
143: \\ I_2 \\ . \\ . \\ . \end{array} \right)
144: \end{equation}
145:
146: In the simplest linear model, the dynamics of $\vec{x}$ are
147: characterized by a $4N~\times~4N$ matrix whose entries are
148: probabilities per unit time: $t_i$ = probability of transmission
149: of disease from an infected to susceptible individual in region
150: $i$, $r_i$ = probability of recovery of infected individual in
151: region $i$, $d_i$ = probability of death of infected individual in
152: region $i$, $m_{i \rightarrow j}$ = probability of movement of an
153: {\it infected} individual from country $i$ to country $j$. Each of
154: these probabilities incorporates several additional parameters
155: that would appear in a more complicated model. For example, $t_i$
156: depends on other factors such as the probability and effectiveness
157: of quarantine, the length of time an infected individual remains
158: asymptomatic, the population density, etc. A very simple
159: modification would be to include asymptomatic as well as
160: symptomatic carriers of the infection by expanding our matrix to
161: $5N~\times~5N$ dimensions. Contagious asymptomatics would have a
162: large transmission probability, as they are difficult to
163: quarantine. We will return later to enhancements of the basic
164: model.
165:
166: The basic parameters $r_i ,t_i ,d_i ,m_{i \rightarrow j}$ vary
167: from region to region, and can be estimated from epidemiological
168: data. Our organizing principle for dividing the world into regions
169: is the relative homogeneity of these parameters within each
170: region. This division may or may not follow national boundaries,
171: as the parameters may vary significantly (e.g., from urban to
172: rural regions) within a given country.
173:
174: The {\it basic reproductive rate} \cite{AM}, commonly
175: denoted ${\cal R}_0$, is defined as the average number of secondary
176: cases caused by a single infected individual. A simple computation
177: (neglecting migration) for region $i$ yields
178: \begin{equation}
179: {\cal R}_0^i ~=~ t_i ~+~ (1 - r_i - d_i)t_i ~+~ (1 - r_i - d_i)^2 t_i
180: ~+~ \cdots ~=~ \left( {t_i \over r_i + d_i } \right)~~~.
181: \end{equation}
182: When ${\cal R}_0 > 1$ the infected population grows exponentially.
183:
184:
185: The system of equations governing the time evolution of $\vec{x}$
186: is
187: \begin{equation}
188: \label{ME} {d \vec{x} \over dt} = M \vec{x} + \vec{J}~~~,
189: \end{equation}
190: where $\vec{J}$ is a possible source of infected individuals
191: coming from zoonosis, an animal reservoir of disease. All elements
192: of $\vec{J}$ are zero except the $(4i-2)$ and $(4i-3)$ entries
193: corresponding to an animal reservoir in region $i$ which
194: contributes to $\, d I_i / dt \,$ and $\, - \, d S_i / dt \,$.
195: Note that, unlike the well-known SIR model \cite{Murray}, equation
196: (\ref{ME}) is linear. The transmission rate per unit time is given
197: by $t_i I_i$ rather than $t_i I_i S_i$. This makes our model
198: slightly less realistic, as the transmission rate per infected
199: individual does not drop as the number of susceptibles goes to
200: zero. The SIR model predicts some fraction of uninfected
201: susceptibles $S( t \rightarrow \infty )$ even when ${\cal R}_0 >
202: 1$, whereas our model would predict that each individual in the
203: entire population is eventually be infected. This leads to an
204: overestimate relative to the SIR model of the total number of
205: infected in countries with ${\cal R}_0 > 1$. However, the
206: difference is only numerically significant when ${\cal R}_0$ is
207: close to 1. (We do not expect the input parameters to be
208: sufficiently well-determined that, e.g., a factor of two in the
209: predicted number of infections is very significant.) Another
210: method for cutting off the exponential growth is to add
211: (nonlinear) logistic terms of the form $- k_i I_i^2$ to the right
212: hand side of the equation, at the cost of adding additional
213: parameters.
214:
215: Equation (\ref{ME}) can be solved analytically:
216: \begin{equation}
217: \vec{x} = - M^{-1} J ~+~ e^{Mt} \left( \vec{x}_0 + M^{-1} J
218: \right)~~~, \label{SME}
219: \end{equation}
220: where $\vec{x}_0$ is the initial condition. The importance of the
221: variables $S_i,R_i,D_i$ is to impose the overall conservation of
222: humans, which is a consequence of the form of $M$, and the
223: constraint that $S,I,R,D$ be positive semi-definite at all times.
224: Although equations (\ref{ME}) and (\ref{SME}) appear simple, the
225: constraints lead to a nontrivial system.
226:
227:
228: Below we exhibit the matrix M for the case of two countries,
229: $i=1,2$.
230: \begin{equation}
231: \label{ansatz1} M ~=~ \left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}
232: 0 & -t_1 & 0 & 0 &0&0&0&0\\
233: 0 & -r_1 - d_1 - m_{1 \rightarrow 2} + t_1 & 0 &0 &0&m_{2 \rightarrow 1}&0&0 \\
234: 0 & r_1 & 0 & 0 &0&0&0&0 \\
235: 0& d_1 &0&0 &0&0&0&0 \\
236:
237: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &0& -t_2 &0&0\\
238: 0 & m_{1 \rightarrow 2} & 0 &0 &0& -r_2 - d_2 - m_{2 \rightarrow 1} + t_2 &0&0 \\
239: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &0& r_2&0&0 \\
240: 0& 0 &0&0 &0& d_2&0&0 \\
241: \end{array} \right)~~~.
242: \end{equation}
243: Note the sum rule implicit in this matrix: $\sum_i^{4N} x_i = {\rm
244: constant}$, which reflects conservation of humans.
245:
246:
247:
248:
249:
250:
251: Despite the simplicity of these models, they may be useful tools
252: for public health policy. For example, the economic impacts on
253: developed country economies from diseases in developing
254: nations can be estimated. This data can be used in cost-benefit
255: assessments of improvements in public health infrastructure in
256: both developed and developing nations.
257:
258:
259:
260:
261:
262: \section{Linear model: analytics and simulations}
263:
264: We now discuss some of the analytic properties of our linear
265: models. First, we note that the system of $4N$ equations can be
266: reduced to a smaller number of equations, due to the large number
267: of zeroes in $M$. In essence, the dynamics involves only the
268: infected individuals $I_i$: the evolution of the $S_i,R_i$ and
269: $D_i$ variables are dependent on $I_i$. Thus there are really only
270: $N$ equations (but subject to constraints; see below), as can be
271: seen from the fact that $M$ has only $N$ non-zero eigenvalues. The
272: matrix $M$, restricted to the $N \times N$ subspace of infected
273: populations $I_i$, is diagonal up to the (small) off-diagonal
274: mobility entries $m_{i \rightarrow j}~$. If the mobility matrix
275: were symmetric, we could diagonalize $M$ via an orthogonal change
276: of basis. However, in general $m_{i \rightarrow j} \neq m_{j
277: \rightarrow i}~$, so we need to use a bi-linear transformation.
278: That is, we can obtain a diagonal matrix $M_D$
279: \begin{equation}
280: M_D ~=~ L \, M \, R~~~,
281: \end{equation}
282: where $L = R^{-1} = R^{T}$ up to corrections which vanish for
283: symmetric $m_{i \rightarrow j}$. In the basis $\vec{y} = R^{-1}
284: \vec{x}$, equation (\ref{ME}) becomes
285: \begin{equation}
286: L \, R \, {d\vec{y} \over dt} ~=~ M_D \, \vec{y} ~+~ L \vec{J}
287: ~~~.
288: \label{MEy}
289: \end{equation}
290: While the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ tell us a great
291: deal - essentially, what would happen in each region if it were
292: isolated - there is additional information in the $L,R$ matrices
293: which relate the original regional basis to the diagonal basis.
294: Below we investigate explicit scenarios involving a developing
295: country $i$ with positive eigenvalue $\lambda_i$, and a
296: developed country $j$ with eigenvalue $\lambda_j$ which is
297: either negative, or, if positive, smaller than $\lambda_i$. In
298: these scenarios the $m_{i \rightarrow j}$ mobility is much more
299: important than the reverse migration $m_{j \rightarrow i}$, since
300: the spread of disease is mainly unidirectional. Hence, we could
301: simply assume $m_{i \rightarrow j} = m_{j \rightarrow i}$ without
302: changing the results appreciably. In that case, $L = R^{-1}$, so equation
303: (\ref{MEy}) becomes uncoupled.
304:
305:
306: In the $N = 2$ case, the non-zero eigenvalues are
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: \lambda_1 &=& -r_1 - d_1 - m_{1 \rightarrow 2} + t_1 \nonumber \\
309: \lambda_2 &=& -r_2
310: -d_2 - m_{2 \rightarrow 1} + t_2~~~.
311: \end{eqnarray}
312: Note that a positive eigenvalue $\lambda_i$
313: corresponds to ${\cal R}_0^i > 1$.
314:
315:
316: Two generic implications can be stated, depending on the sign of
317: $\lambda_i$. Here we assume that the entries of the off-diagonal
318: mobility matrix $m_{i \rightarrow j}$ are small compared to the
319: other probabilities, so that we can discuss the eigenvalue
320: associated an individual region $i$. This is likely to be the case
321: in any realistic scenario where the mobility matrix reflects air
322: travel.
323:
324: A country with positive eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ will experience
325: exponential growth in the number of infecteds $I_i$. This growth
326: is only limited by the constraint of total population: eventually
327: roughly the entire susceptible population has been infected and
328: after a long
329: period of time there are only recovered and dead individuals.
330: (This situation is familiar in the case of the common cold or
331: influenza.) There are two important timescales involved:
332: $\lambda_i^{-1}$, which determines the rate of exponential growth,
333: and $|\lambda_i - t_i|^{-1}$, ($\lambda_i - t_i$ is negative)
334: which gives the rate of decline of $I_i$ after saturation occurs
335: and there are no more susceptibles to be infected ($S_i = 0$, so
336: effectively the transmission probability $t_i$ can be set to zero
337: in the corresponding eigenvalue). The outbreak in a highly
338: susceptible country cannot last much longer than the sum of these
339: timescales.
340:
341:
342: A country with a negative eigenvalue is capable of suppressing any
343: outbreaks of the disease. Nevertheless, there may be a steady
344: state number of infections
345: \begin{equation} I_j ~\sim~ {J_j \over |\lambda_j|} ~+~
346: \sum_{i \neq j} {m_{i \rightarrow j}~ I_i \over | \lambda_j -
347: \lambda_i|}
348: \end{equation}
349: due to the animal reservoir $J$ and/or the migration of infected
350: individuals from other regions. This equation is valid for $m_{i
351: \rightarrow j}$ small compared to $|\lambda_j - \lambda_i|$. (The
352: difference in eigenvalues results from the diagonalization of $M$,
353: and is analogous to the result in quantum mechanics for the change
354: in energy eigenstate under a small perturbation to the
355: Hamiltonian.) The most dangerous sources of disease migration are
356: countries $i$ with positive eigenvalue $\lambda_i$. The total flux
357: of migration is roughly determined by the mobility $m_{i
358: \rightarrow j}$, the population $S_i (0)$ and the timescales
359: $\lambda_i^{-1}$ and $|\lambda_i - t_i |^{-1}$.
360:
361: Consider a plausible worst case scenario involving a developing
362: country $i$ with positive $\lambda_i$ and much larger population
363: than developed country $j$ which has negative $\lambda_j$. The
364: developing country is the main source of infection for the
365: developed country. In this case, we obtain the simple relation
366: \begin{equation} I_j ~\sim~ {m_{i \rightarrow j}~ I_i \over |
367: \lambda_j - \lambda_i|}
368: \end{equation}
369: relating the number of infected in the two countries at any
370: particular time. The {\it total} number of infections in country
371: $j$ (during the entire epidemic) is related to $I_j (t)$ in a
372: complicated way, depending on recovery and death rates. However,
373: by solving equation (\ref{SME}) we can obtain a simple expression
374: for the ratio of total number of infections $N_i$ in the two
375: countries
376: \begin{equation}
377: \label{NR} {N_j \over N_i} ~=~ {m_{i \rightarrow j} \over \vert
378: \lambda_j \vert} \, \left( { {d_j + r_j} \over {d_i + r_i}}
379: \right)~~~,
380: \end{equation}
381: to leading order in $m_{i \rightarrow j}$. The first ratio in this
382: result can be interpreted as the fraction of infected individuals
383: who travel from country $i$ to $j$ in the timescale $\vert
384: \lambda_j \vert^{-1}$, which is roughly the ``halving'' time in
385: country $j$. As long as the death and recovery rates in the two
386: countries are not too different, this can be used as a rule of
387: thumb to estimate the ratio of total number of infections.
388: Obviously it behooves country $j$ to make $\vert \lambda_j
389: \vert^{-1}$ as small as possible.
390:
391: We can also obtain simple expressions for the peak number of
392: infected individuals in both countries (neglecting animal
393: reservoirs):
394: \begin{equation}
395: I_i^{\rm peak} ~=~ {\lambda_i \over t_i} \left( P_i - I_i(0)\left(
396: 1 + \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) ~ \simeq ~ {\lambda_i
397: \over t_i} P_i \label{peak1}
398: \end{equation}
399: and
400: \begin{eqnarray} \label{peak2}
401: I_j^{\rm peak} &=& {m_{i \rightarrow j} \over \vert \lambda_i -
402: \lambda_j \vert} \left( \frac{\lambda_i}{t_i} \, \left( P_i -
403: I_i(0)\left( 1 + \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) ~+~ I_i(0)
404: \left(
405: {\lambda_i \over I_i(0) t_i}
406: \left( P_i - I_i(0)\left( 1 +
407: \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right)
408: \right)^{\lambda_j \over
409: \lambda_i} \right) \nonumber \\
410: &\simeq& {m_{i \rightarrow j} \over \vert \lambda_i - \lambda_j
411: \vert} {\lambda_i \over t_i} P_i
412: \end{eqnarray}
413: where $I_i(0)$ is the initial number of infecteds, and $P_i$ is
414: the total population, in country $i$. This gives the maximum
415: capacity required of the medical system during the epidemic.
416: Again, our result is likely to be an overestimate relative to a
417: more realistic SIR or logistic model.
418:
419:
420:
421: Below we describe the results of two illustrative simulations of
422: the linear model. The parameters are chosen to be realistic
423: average probabilities per week of transmission, recovery, death
424: and international travel. We integrate equation (\ref{ME}) forward
425: numerically, discretizing time in units of weeks, and starting
426: with a random number of infecteds between 1 and 10. Country 1 has
427: population $10^9$ and country 2 has population $10^8$. Note that
428: the figures display the infected population $I_i (t)$ as a
429: function of time, not the total number of individuals who have
430: ever been infected. The latter quantity, although not displayed,
431: agrees precisely with the result given in equation (\ref{NR}). The
432: peak infected results in equations (\ref{peak1}) and (\ref{peak2})
433: are also confirmed.
434:
435: 1) One positive and one negative eigenvalue. The epidemic infects
436: the entire population of country 1 (figure (\ref{C11})), but
437: infects only a small fraction of the population of country 2
438: (figure (\ref{C21})). The parameter values used are $t_1 = 1;~ r_1
439: = 0.7;~ d_1 = 0.2;~ t_2 = 0.85;~ r_2 = 0.9;~ d_2 = 0.05;~ m_{12} =
440: 0.00001;~ m_{21} = 0$, eigenvalues $\lambda_1 = 0.09999$,
441: $\lambda_2 = -0.1$. The overall results are consistent with our
442: result (\ref{NR}).
443:
444:
445:
446: 2) Two positive eigenvalues. The epidemic sweeping through country
447: 1 (figure (\ref{C12})) drives rapid growth in country 2 (figures
448: (\ref{C22}),(\ref{C22e})) until it has completed its course. At
449: this point slower growth characterized by $\lambda_2$ (which is
450: very small) resumes. In the end all susceptible individuals in
451: both countries are infected. The falloff of $I_2$ appears abrupt
452: in figure (\ref{C22e}) because $|\lambda_2 - t_2|$ is much larger
453: than $\lambda_2$. $t_1 = 1;~ r_1 = 0.75;~ d_1 = 0.2;~ t_2 =
454: 0.851;~ r_2 = 0.8;~ d_2 = 0.05;~ m_{12} = 0.00001;~ m_{21} = 0$,
455: eigenvalues $\lambda_1 = 0.04999$, $\lambda_2 = 0.001$.
456:
457: The numerical values of parameters have been varied only slightly
458: between the two examples, but the resulting behaviors are very
459: different, largely because the eigenvalue $\lambda_2$ has changed sign.
460:
461:
462:
463: \bigskip
464:
465:
466:
467:
468:
469:
470:
471:
472: \section{Nonlinear models}
473:
474: To make the models more realistic, we can let the parameters
475: $t_i,r_i,d_i$ depend on local quantities $x_i$. The resulting
476: equations are nonlinear, although still straightforward to
477: simulate numerically. For example, it is possible that a region's
478: medical capabilities are overwhelmed as the number of infected
479: individuals increases. Indeed, in both the SARS outbreak and the
480: influenza of 1918 (Spanish flu) medical personnel were
481: disproportionately affected.
482:
483: As a simple example, we take the parameters from simulation 1 in
484: the previous section, and let the recovery rate $r_2$ of country 2
485: (which had a negative eigenvalue) interpolate between the initial
486: value $r_2$ when $I_2 = 0$ and $r_2^*$ when $I_2$ is large,
487: according to the formula
488: \begin{equation}
489: r_2 (I_2) = r_2 + (r_2^* - r_2) \left( {I_2 \over I_2 + I_2^*}
490: \right)~~~.
491: \end{equation}
492: This reflects a saturation of medical treatment capabilities after
493: some characteristic number of infections. When $I_2$ is much
494: larger than $I_2^*$ the recovery probability per unit time is
495: reduced from its initial value of $r_2$ to $r_2^*$, and the
496: eigenvalue $\lambda_2$ may become positive. We take $I_2^* =
497: 2000$, $r_2 = .9$ and $r_2^* = .7$. The results are shown in
498: figures (\ref{C23}) and (\ref{C23a}). Figure (\ref{C23a}) reveals
499: the onset of the nonlinear behavior when $I_2$ is a few thousand
500: (compare to figure (\ref{C21})).
501:
502:
503:
504:
505:
506:
507: \section{Internet viruses and worms}
508:
509: These models can be modified to describe the propagation of
510: computer viruses and worms. (From the point of view of our models,
511: there is no essential difference between the two.) A virus
512: commonly inserts itself into other program files, in the same
513: manner that a virus in nature takes over the workings of normal
514: cells. When the infected program runs, the virus code gets a
515: chance to inspect its environment and look for and infect new
516: carriers in the form of other program files. A worm
517: is a self-replicating program that does not
518: alter files but resides in active memory and duplicates itself by
519: means of computer networks. Worms use facilities of an operating
520: system that are meant to be automatic and invisible to the user.
521: It is common for worms to be noticed only when their uncontrolled
522: replication consumes system resources, slowing or halting other
523: tasks.
524:
525: The variation of parameters by region in our model would be a
526: consequence of different levels of security administration in
527: home, small business, educational and corporate networks.
528:
529: Mobility $m_{i \rightarrow j}$ has no analog here, as the infected
530: computer does not hop from network to network. Rather, an infected
531: machine can infect other machines connected to the Internet,
532: leading to a non-local (off-diagonal) transmission matrix $t_{i
533: \rightarrow j}$. Machines on local networks $k$ with strong
534: firewalls and virus scanning would be difficult to infect, leading
535: to correspondingly small entries $t_{i \rightarrow k}$. However,
536: once a virus or worm has penetrated the firewall, spread within a
537: local network can be quite rapid, so the diagonal elements $t_{k
538: \rightarrow k}$ may be quite large. Often, the only factor
539: limiting the rate of infection is saturation of available
540: bandwidth by worm scanning activity.
541:
542: ``Slammer'', the most successful worm to date, exploited a
543: security hole in Microsoft's SQL Server (a database server), and
544: infected 75,000 machines around the world in less than a half hour
545: on January 25, 2003 \cite{Slammer}. The initial doubling time of
546: the infected population was 8.5 seconds, and the growth curve
547: displayed a typical logistic shape.
548:
549:
550: \section{Discussion}
551:
552: We have attempted to model the spread of infectious diseases in a
553: global environment, taking into account geographical variation of
554: public health capabilities as well as human mobility (i.e., via
555: air travel). We believe our models capture a large range of
556: possible behaviors using a minimal set of parameters, each of
557: which can be roughly estimated from data.
558:
559: One interesting conclusion from our models is that typical
560: international mobility -- the probability per unit time of
561: international travel for a given infected individual, estimated at
562: $m_{i \rightarrow j} \sim 10^{-5}$ per week -- is still
563: sufficiently small that a country with well-developed public
564: health infrastructure (effectively, a negative eigenvalue
565: $\lambda$) can resist an epidemic even when other more populous
566: countries experience complete saturation. In the quasi-realistic
567: simulation 1 (figures (\ref{C11}),(\ref{C21})), of order $10^5$
568: infections occur in country 2, even though the disease has swept
569: completely through country 1. In reaching this conclusion, we kept
570: the mobility parameter fixed during the outbreak, and did not
571: assume any draconian quarantine on international travellers
572: arriving in country 2. Such measures would reduce the number of
573: infections in country 2 considerably. Of course, this conclusion
574: assumes that the public health infrastructure in country 2 remains
575: robust during the outbreak. In the nonlinear simulation 3 (figures
576: (\ref{C23}), (\ref{C23a})), we see that a breakdown in the medical
577: system can lead to grave consequences.
578:
579: In the case of two countries, one of which is a ``reservoir'' with
580: positive eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ and the other with negative
581: eigenvalue $\lambda_j$, a good rule of thumb arising from equation
582: (\ref{NR}) is that the ratio of total number of infections in the
583: two countries is given by the fraction of infected individuals who
584: migrate in a timescale $\vert \lambda_j \vert^{-1}$, which is the
585: ``halving'' time for the epidemic in country $j$. In our
586: simulation 1, this timescale is about two months, and the
587: fractional mobility over that period is $\sim 10^{-4}$, leading to
588: $10^5$ infections in country 2 if the entire $10^9$ population of
589: country 1 is infected. The maximum number of infections at any
590: given time in the simulation is $5 \cdot 10^3$ (figure
591: (\ref{C21})). If the medical system of country 2 can treat this
592: number of patients without breaking down (entering the nonlinear
593: regime), it can prevent a larger outbreak.
594:
595: Our formula (\ref{NR}) is not applicable to early SARS data since
596: the eigenvalues have clearly been time-dependent during the early
597: stages of the epidemic (estimates of ${\cal R}_0$ vary widely
598: during different time periods \cite{SARS}). Even developed
599: countries like Canada and Taiwan exhibited ${\cal R}_0 > 1$ during
600: the first months (positive eigenvalues), although as of this
601: writing eigenvalues appear to be negative for all countries.
602:
603:
604:
605:
606:
607:
608: \bigskip
609:
610:
611:
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613: %%%
614: %%% ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
615: %%%
616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
617: \section*{Acknowledgements}
618: \noindent
619:
620: AZ thanks A. Madhav for conversations.
621: SH is supported under Department of Energy
622: contract DE-FG06-85ER40224. AZ is grateful for the
623: warm hospitality of the University of Oregon, where this work
624: was begun, and
625: acknowledges support from NSF grant PHY 99-07949.
626:
627:
628:
629:
630:
631:
632:
633:
634:
635:
636:
637:
638:
639:
640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
641: %%%
642: %%% BIBLIOGRAPHY
643: %%%
644: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
645:
646: \bigskip
647:
648: %\newpage
649: \vskip 1 in
650: \baselineskip=1.6pt
651: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
652: %
653: %abbreviated journal names:
654:
655: \bibitem{SARS} For analysis of recent SARS epidemiological data, see
656: C. Dye and N. Gay, 10.1126/science.1086925 (Science Express
657: Perspectives); M. Lipsitch et al., 10.1126/science.1086616
658: (Science Express Reports); S. Riley et al.,
659: 10.1126/science.1086478 (Science Express Reports )
660:
661: \bibitem{Influenza} See, e.g., the World Health Organization
662: Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Plan,
663: http://www.who.int/emc-documents/influenza/docs/index.htm
664:
665: \bibitem{AM} R.M. Anderson and R.M. May, Infectious Diseases of
666: Humans, Oxford University Press (1991), ISBN 0-19-854599-1
667:
668: \bibitem{Murray} J.D. Murray, Mathematical Biology,
669: Springer-Verlag (2003), ISBN 0387952284.
670:
671: \bibitem{Slammer} See, e.g., http://www.caida.org/analysis/security/sapphire/
672:
673:
674:
675:
676: \end{thebibliography}
677:
678: \newpage
679: %\bigskip
680:
681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
682: % FIGURES
683: %
684: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
685:
686: \epsfysize=3.5 cm
687: \begin{figure}[htb]
688: \center{ \leavevmode \epsfbox{C1_1.eps} \caption{Number of
689: infected in country 1, simulation 1. Note saturation and cutoff.}
690: \label{C11}}
691: \end{figure}
692:
693: \epsfysize=3.5 cm
694: \begin{figure}[htb]
695: \center{ \leavevmode \epsfbox{C2_1.eps} \caption{Number of
696: infected in country 2 (negative eigenvalue), simulation 1.}
697: \label{C21}}
698: \end{figure}
699:
700: \epsfysize=3.5 cm
701: \begin{figure}[htb]
702: \center{ \leavevmode \epsfbox{C1_2.eps} \caption{Number of
703: infected in country 1, simulation 2. Note saturation and cutoff.}
704: \label{C12} }
705: \end{figure}
706:
707: \epsfysize=3.5 cm
708: \begin{figure}[htb]
709: \center{ \leavevmode \epsfbox{C2_2.eps} \caption{Number of
710: infected in country 2 (small positive eigenvalue), simulation 2.
711: Rapid growth driven by migration from country 1 levels off after
712: epidemic subsides in country 1. Subsequent growth in country 2 is
713: much slower.} \label{C22} }
714: \end{figure}
715:
716: \epsfysize=3.5 cm
717: \begin{figure}[htb]
718: \center{ \leavevmode \epsfbox{C2_2e.eps} \caption{Number of
719: infected in country 2 (small positive eigenvalue), simulation 2.
720: This graph extends over a longer period of time, exhibiting
721: eventual saturation.} \label{C22e} }
722: \end{figure}
723:
724:
725:
726: \epsfysize=3.5 cm
727: \begin{figure}[htb]
728: \center{ \leavevmode \epsfbox{C2_3.eps} \caption{Number of
729: infected in country 2, simulation 3. Initially negative eigenvalue
730: becomes positive as number of infected increases, leading to
731: saturation in country 2.} \label{C23} }
732: \end{figure}
733:
734: \epsfysize=3.5 cm
735: \begin{figure}[htb]
736: \center{ \leavevmode \epsfbox{C2a_3.eps} \caption{Number of
737: infected in country 2, simulation 3. Detail of non-linear region
738: in which recovery probability per week falls from .9 to .7.
739: Compare to figure (\ref{C21}).} \label{C23a} }
740: \end{figure}
741:
742:
743:
744: \end{document}
745:
746:
747: \bigskip
748:
749:
750:
751:
752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
753: %%% %%%
754: %%% FIGURE 1 %%%
755: %%% %%%
756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
757:
758:
759:
760:
761:
762: \begin{figure}[t]
763: \begin{center}
764: \epsfile{file=C1_1.eps,width=0.30\textwidth}
765: \end{center}
766: \caption{Number of infected in country 1, simulation 1. Note
767: saturation and cutoff.} \label{C11}
768: \end{figure}
769:
770:
771: \begin{figure}[t]
772: \begin{center}
773: \epsfile{file=C2_1.eps,width=0.30\textwidth}
774: \end{center}
775: \caption{Number of infected in country 2 (negative eigenvalue),
776: simulation 1.} \label{C21}
777: \end{figure}
778:
779:
780: We can also obtain simple expressions for the peak number of
781: infected individuals in both countries (neglecting animal
782: reservoirs):
783: \begin{equation}
784: I_i^{\rm peak} ~=~ {\lambda_i \over t_i} \left( P_i - I_i(0)\left(
785: 1 + \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) ~ \simeq ~ {\lambda_i
786: \over t_i} P_i \label{peak1}
787: \end{equation}
788: and
789: \begin{eqnarray} \label{peak2}
790: I_j^{\rm peak} &=& {m_{i \rightarrow j} \over \vert \lambda_i -
791: \lambda_j \vert} \left( \frac{\lambda_i}{t_i} \, \left( P_i -
792: I_i(0)\left( 1 + \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) ~+~ I_i(0)
793: \left( {\lambda_i \left( P_i - I_i(0)\left( 1 +
794: \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) \over I_i(0) t_1
795: }\right)^{\lambda_j \over
796: \lambda_i} \right) \nonumber \\
797: &\simeq& {m_{i \rightarrow j} \over \vert \lambda_i - \lambda_j
798: \vert} {\lambda_i \over t_i} P_i
799: \end{eqnarray}
800: where $I_i(0)$ is the initial number of infecteds, and $P_i$ is
801: the total population, in country $i$. This gives the maximum
802: capacity required of the medical system during the epidemic.
803: Again, our result is likely to be an overestimate relative to a
804: more realistic SIR or logistic model.
805:
806:
807:
808: We can also obtain simple expressions for the peak number of
809: infected individuals in both countries (neglecting animal
810: reservoirs):
811: \begin{equation}
812: I_i^{\rm peak} ~=~ {\lambda_i \over t_i} \left( S_i (0) -
813: I_i(0)\left( 1 + \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) ~ \simeq ~
814: {\lambda_i \over t_i} S_i (0) \label{peak1}
815: \end{equation}
816: and
817: \begin{eqnarray} \label{peak2}
818: I_j^{\rm peak} &=& {m_{i \rightarrow j} \over \vert \lambda_i -
819: \lambda_j \vert} \left( \frac{\lambda_i}{t_i} \, \left( S_i (0) -
820: I_i(0)\left( 1 + \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) ~+~ I_i(0)
821: \left( {\lambda_i \left( S_i (0) - I_i(0)\left( 1 +
822: \frac{t_i}{\lambda_i} \right) \right) \over I_i(0) t_1
823: }\right)^{\lambda_j \over
824: \lambda_i} \right) \nonumber \\
825: &\simeq& {m_{i \rightarrow j} \over \vert \lambda_i - \lambda_j
826: \vert} {\lambda_i \over t_i} S_i (0)
827: \end{eqnarray}
828: where $I_i(0)$ is the initial number of infecteds, and $S_i (0)$
829: is the total susceptible population, in country $i$. This gives
830: the maximum capacity required of the medical system during the
831: epidemic. Again, our result is likely to be an overestimate
832: relative to a more realistic SIR or logistic model.
833: