| Literature DB >> 33747709 |
A Ssematimba1, J N Nakakawa2, J Ssebuliba2, J Y T Mugisha2.
Abstract
This paper develops and analyses a habitat area size dependent mathematical model to study the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in crowded settlements such as refugee camps, schools, markets and churches. The model quantifies the potential impact of physical/social distancing and population density on the disease burden. Results reveal that with no fatalities and no infected entrants, the reproduction numbers associated with asymptomatic and symptomatic cases are inversely proportional to; the habitat area size, and the efforts employed in tracing and hospitalising these cases. The critical habitat area below which the disease dies out is directly proportion to the time taken to identify and hospitalise infected individuals. Results also show that disease persistence in the community is guaranteed even with minimal admission of infected individuals. Our results further show that as the level of compliance to standard operating procedures (SOPs) increases, then the disease prevalence peaks are greatly reduced and delayed. Therefore, proper adherence to SOPs such as use of masks, physical distancing measures and effective contact tracing should be highly enforced in crowded settings if COVID-19 is to be mitigated.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Critical area; Crowding; Mathematical modelling; Standard operating procedures
Year: 2021 PMID: 33747709 PMCID: PMC7955223 DOI: 10.1007/s40435-021-00781-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dyn Control ISSN: 2195-268X
Fig. 1Schematic diagram for the model
Parameter values used in the model
| Parameter/variable | Description | Value (units) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population in high activity area | 270,000 | [ | |
| Settlement area size | 250 ( | [ | |
| Fraction of arrivals that are asymptomatic | 0.01 | Asuumed | |
| Fraction of arrivals that are latently infected | 0.01 | Assumed | |
| Transmission coefficient | 0.00056 ( | [ | |
| Fraction of susceptible individuals that mingle freely | 0.1 | Assumed | |
| Constant arrival rate | 0.17 (per day) | [ | |
| Per capita exit rate of susceptible and recovered individuals from the community | [ | ||
| Waning rate of immunity | 0 (per day) | Assumed | |
| Infectivity reduction factor among hospitalised ( | 0.005 | Assumed | |
| Hospitalisation rate of asymptomatic infectious | 0.2 (per day) | [ | |
| Hospitalisation rate of symptomatic infectious | 0.5 (per day) | [ | |
| Fraction of latently infected hospitalised ( | 0.2 | [ | |
| Fraction of latently infected that become asymptomatic ( | 0.4 | [ | |
| Disease induced mortality reduction among hospitalised ( | 0* | [ | |
| Infectivity reduction among asymptomatic individuals ( | 1** | Assumed | |
| Progression rate from latent stage to infectious stage | 0.2 (per day) | [ | |
| Disease induced death rate | 0* (per day) | [ | |
| Recovery rate | 0.048 (per day) | [ |
*Set to zero since death rate was zero in Uganda as of 20th July 2020
**Set to one pending further studies
Fig. 2Effect of a population density, b infectivity of hospitalised individuals, c hospitalisation rate of asymptomatic infectious individuals and, d hospitalisation rate of symptomatic infectious individuals on the basic reproduction number for COVID-19
Fig. 3Estimated COVID-19 prevalence for smaller transmission rate per per day given different levels of public health interventions
Fig. 4Estimation of COVID-19 prevalence for slightly higher transmission rates given different levels of adherence to standard operating procedures