| Literature DB >> 33071458 |
Xinchen Yu1, Guoyuan Qi1, Jianbing Hu2.
Abstract
At present, more and more countries have entered the parallel stage of fighting the epidemic and restoring the economy after reaching the inflection point. Due to economic pressure, the government of India had to implement a policy of relaxing control during the rising period of the epidemic. This paper proposes a compartment model to study the development of COVID-19 in India after relaxing control. The Sigmoid function reflecting the cumulative effect is used to characterize the model-based diagnosis rate, cure rate and mortality rate. Considering the influence of the lockdown on the model parameters, the data are fitted using the method of least squares before and after the lockdown. According to numerical simulation and model analysis, the impact of India's relaxation of control before and after the inflection point is studied. Research shows that adopting a relaxation policy prematurely will have disastrous consequences. Even if the degree of relaxation is only 5% before the inflection point, it will increase the number of deaths by 15.03%. If the control is relaxed after the inflection point, the higher degree of relaxation, the more likely a secondary outbreak will occur, which will extend the duration of the pandemic, leading to more deaths and put more pressure on the health care system. It is found that after the implementation of the relaxation policy, medical quarantine capability and public cooperation are two vital indicators. The results show that if the supply of kits and detection speed can be increased after the control is relaxed, the secondary outbreak can be effectively avoided. Meanwhile, the increase in public cooperation can significantly reduce the spread of the virus, suppress the second outbreak of the pandemic and reduce the death toll. It is of reference significance to the government's policy formulation. © Springer Nature B.V. 2020.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Compartment model; Inflection point; Relaxing control; Second outbreak
Year: 2020 PMID: 33071458 PMCID: PMC7546939 DOI: 10.1007/s11071-020-05989-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nonlinear Dyn ISSN: 0924-090X Impact factor: 5.022
Fig. 1Flow diagram of COVID-19 transmission
Fig. 2Effect of Sigmoid function parameter changes on trends
Fitting results of coefficients
| Coefficient | Range | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.2909 | Fitted | ||
| 0.0011 | Fitted | ||
| 1844.2306 | Fitted | ||
| 0.0507 | Fitted | ||
| 163.3708 | Fitted | ||
| 0.0282 | Fitted | ||
| − 246.0921 | Fitted | ||
| 0.13830 | Fitted | ||
| 0.00754 | Fitted | ||
| 338.00666 | Fitted | ||
| 0.01330 | Fitted | ||
| 286.40878 | Fitted | ||
| 0.00590 | Fitted | ||
| − 954.98765 | Fitted |
Fig. 3Model-based fitting curve (solid blue line) and data scatter plot (red circle), where a refers to cumulative confirmed cases, b daily confirmed cases, c cumulative cured cases and d cumulative fatal cases
Goodness of fit under different types of model parameters
| Type of model parameters | The value of | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before lockdown (March 1 to March 24) | After lockdown (March 25 to June 7) | |||||||
| Sigmoid function | 0.9902 | 0.8811 | 0.7841 | 0.5441 | 0.9999 | 0.9851 | 0.9983 | 0.9949 |
| Constant parameter | 0.9903 | 0.8809 | 0.6954 | 0.4904 | 0.9987 | 0.9736 | 0.9838 | 0.9855 |
Fig. 4Stage of epidemic situation in some countries
Fig. 5Impact of India’s first relaxation of controls on June 8, a daily confirmed cases, b cumulative confirmed cases and c cumulative fatal cases. A slight relaxation of control before the inflection point will cause more serious consequences
Fig. 6Impact of India on, a daily confirmed cases, b cumulative confirmed cases and c cumulative fatal cases, after further relaxation of control on August 22. After the turning point, as the degree of relaxation increased, a second outbreak of the epidemic occurred, resulting in more confirmed cases and deaths
Comparison of data after further relaxing control at different levels on August 22
| Degree of further relaxation (%) | Daily confirmed cases curve | Cumulative confirmed cases curve | Cumulative fatal cases curve | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Second peak value | Second peak time | Duration of the outbreak (increase rate compared to 0%) | Stable value (increase rate compared to 0%) | Stable value (increase rate compared to 0%) | |
| 0 | – | – | 89 (−) | 1,507,406 (−) | 32,527 (−) |
| 30 | – | – | 111 (24.72%) | 1,622,754 (7.652%) | 33,228 (2.155%) |
| 45 | 9199 | 15 | 127 (42.70%) | 1,816,494 (20.50%) | 34,288 (5.414%) |
| 60 | 16,007 | 32 | 144 (61.80%) | 2,318,547 (53.81%) | 36,701 (12.83%) |
Fig. 8Diagnosis rate curves under different parameters, for the combination of specific parameters and , seeing Table 4
Fig. 7Impact of the same degree of relaxation (60%) on, a daily confirmed cases, b cumulative confirmed cases, c cumulative fatal cases after a further relaxation of control at different time points. Under the same degree of relaxation after the inflection point, the earlier the relaxation, the more likely to have a second outbreak even more than the first outbreak
Details of the diagnosis rate curves in Fig. 8
| Diagnosis rate curve number | Average increase rate compared to baseline (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| I | 0.00890 | 276.1 | 28.97 |
| II | 0.00695 | 319.6 | 15.04 |
| III | 0.00723 | 329.8 | 7.158 |
| Baseline | 0.00754 | 338.00666 | – |
| IV | 0.00784 | 343.1 | − 5.425 |
Fig. 9Effect of different diagnosed rates on a daily confirmed cases, b cumulative confirmed cases and c cumulative fatal cases after a further relaxation of control. The higher the medical quarantine capability, the more capable of suppressing second outbreak. However, if the medical quarantine capacity is lower than the current one after the control is relaxed, it will cause more serious consequences
Impact of different diagnosis rates on the epidemic after a further relaxation of control
| Curve number | Daily confirmed cases curve | Cumulative confirmed cases curve | Cumulative fatal cases curve | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Second peak value | Second peak time | Second outbreak Duration | Stable value (decrease rate compared to baseline) | Stable value (decrease rate compared to baseline) | ||
| I | 28.97 | 9976 | 2 | 95 | 1,629,180 (29.73%) | 33,360 (9.103%) |
| II | 15.04 | 9649 | 2 | 114 | 1,703,095 (26.54%) | 33,755 (8.027%) |
| III | 7.158 | 9985 | 17 | 129 | 1,869,139 (19.38%) | 34,576 (5.790%) |
| Baseline | – | 16,007 | 32 | 144 | 2,318,550 (−) | 36,701 (−) |
| IV | − 5.425 | 25,733 | 44 | 156 | 2,982,492 (− 28.64%) | 39,401 (− 7.357%) |
Fig. 10Effect of different degrees of public cooperation on a daily confirmed cases, b cumulative confirmed cases and c cumulative fatal cases after a further relaxation of control. After the relaxation of control, the increase in public cooperation m% can also suppress the second outbreak of the pandemic and shorten the duration of the pandemic