| Literature DB >> 32836817 |
Zhenzhen Lu1, Yongguang Yu1, YangQuan Chen2, Guojian Ren1, Conghui Xu1, Shuhui Wang1, Zhe Yin1.
Abstract
In the end of 2019, a new type of coronavirus first appeared in Wuhan. Through the real-data of COVID-19 from January 23 to March 18, 2020, this paper proposes a fractional SEIHDR model based on the coupling effect of inter-city networks. At the same time, the proposed model considers the mortality rates (exposure, infection and hospitalization) and the infectivity of individuals during the incubation period. By applying the least squares method and prediction-correction method, the proposed system is fitted and predicted based on the real-data from January 23 to March 18 - m where m represents predict days. Compared with the integer system, the non-network fractional model has been verified and can better fit the data of Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan and Huanggang. Compared with the no-network case, results show that the proposed system with inter-city network may not be able to better describe the spread of disease in China due to the lock and isolation measures, but this may have a significant impact on countries that has no closure measures. Meanwhile, the proposed model is more suitable for the data of Japan, the USA from January 22 and February 1 to April 16 and Italy from February 24 to March 31. Then, the proposed fractional model can also predict the peak of diagnosis. Furthermore, the existence, uniqueness and boundedness of a nonnegative solution are considered in the proposed system. Afterward, the disease-free equilibrium point is locally asymptotically stable when the basic reproduction number R 0 ≤ 1 , which provide a theoretical basis for the future control of COVID-19. © Springer Nature B.V. 2020.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Fractional-order; Inter-city networked coupling effects; SEIHDR epidemic model
Year: 2020 PMID: 32836817 PMCID: PMC7405792 DOI: 10.1007/s11071-020-05848-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nonlinear Dyn ISSN: 0924-090X Impact factor: 5.022
Fig. 1Transmission diagram for system (2)
Fig. 2The number of recovered and confirmed for Beijing (m = 6)
Fig. 3The number of recovered and confirmed for Shanghai ()
Fig. 4The number of recovered and confirmed for Hubei ()
Fig. 5The number of recovered and confirmed for Wuhan ()
Fig. 6The number of recovered and confirmed for Huanggang ()
Error with the real-data and the numerical solutions
| Error ( | Different country | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing | Shanghai | Hubei | Wuhan | Huanggang | |
|
| 23.6 | 34.3 | 21.8 | 19.2 | 78.3 |
|
| 5.9 | 14.1 | 16.2 | 19.1 | 49.7 |
Performance comparison with different city
| Different country | Different index | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Beijing | 1.1913 | 0.8855 |
| Shanghai | 0.9844 | 0.8833 |
| Hubei | 1.4343 | 0.9848 |
| Wuhan | 0.9995 | 1.2675 |
| Huanggang | 0.0332 | 0.9568 |
| America | 0.7945 | 1.1443 |
| Japan | 0.3279 | 1.6346 |
| Italy | 0.7056 |
|
Fig. 7The sensitivity of the basic reproduction number
Fig. 8Prediction of peak in Hubei province
Fig. 9With and without inter-city network in Beijing and Shanghai
Fig. 10With and without considering inter-city network in Wuhan and Huanggang
Fig. 11American report and forecast from 22 January to 16 April
Fig. 12Japan report and forecast from 1 February to 16 April
Fig. 13Italy report and forecast from 24 February to 31 March