| Literature DB >> 35747718 |
Hongyan Sun1, Wei Xu1, Yinyun Yu2, Guiyang Cai3.
Abstract
As a serious emergency in 2020, COVID-19 had a great impact on people's lives. In this paper, short-term and long-term response to emergency supplies needs after the outbreak of COVID-19 in a region is studied. Firstly, a comparative study of different regional resource coordination options in the early stages of COVID-19 is conducted using a multiobjective decision-making approach to arrive at the optimal solution. Then, a system dynamics model is established for the follow-up development of the epidemic, to predict the long-term development trend of the epidemic, and to study the urgency of the needs of different materials in different periods. The results show that time and satisfaction are the two most important indicators in the decision-making of the material deployment programme in the early stages of an outbreak. In the long-term control of the epidemic, the number of patients with minor illnesses generally peaks around 20 days, while the number of patients with severe illnesses generally peaks around 40 days, providing a focus for the supply of supplies at different times in the actual development of the epidemic, in order to better and more effectively control the epidemic and reduce inefficient consumption of supplies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35747718 PMCID: PMC9210128 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2005188
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Function curve of supplier satisfaction. Supply side satisfaction decreases as resource supply increases.
Figure 2Function curve of demand side satisfaction. Demand side satisfaction corresponds to different curves depending on the type of material.
Figure 3Feedback graph. The feedback diagram contains a positive feedback loop and a negative feedback loop.
Figure 4Dynamic flow diagram of COVID-19 transmission. The dynamical flow diagram contains eight state variables, nine rate variables, one auxiliary variable, and 12 constants.
Summary of variables.
| Attribute | Name |
|---|---|
| State variables | Close contacts, vulnerable population, latent patients, diagnosed patients, patients with mild disease, critically ill patients, the number of deaths, the number of cure |
|
| |
| Rate variable | Close contact rate, susceptibility rate, infection rates, diagnostic rate, incidence rate, rate of severity, mortality rate, recovery rate 1, recovery rate 2 |
|
| |
| Instrumental variables | Total number |
|
| |
| Constant | Transmission coefficient, contact number, vaccination, coefficient of cure 1, coefficient of cure 2, coefficient of death, |
Relationship and function formula of variables.
| formula 1: Close contacts = INTEG (close contact rate) | Formula 7: The number of cure = INTEG (recovery rate 1 + recovery rate 2) | Formula 13: Incidence rate = (Diagnosed patients/ |
|
| ||
| Formula 2: Vulnerable population = INTEG (susceptibility rate − infection rates) | Formula 8: The number of deaths = INTEG (mortality rate) | Formula 14: Rate of severe = (0.15 |
|
| ||
| Formula 3: Latent patients = INTEG (infection rates − Diagnosed patients) | Formula 9: Close contact rate = (contact number/diagnostic rate) | Formula 15: Recovery rate 1 = (Patients with mild disease |
|
| ||
| Formula 4: Diagnosed patients = INTEG (diagnostic rate − incidence rate) | Formula 10: Susceptibility rate = (0.5 | Formula 16: Recovery rate 2 = (critically ill patients |
|
| ||
| Formula 5: Patients with mild disease = INTEG (incidence rate − recovery rate 1 − rate of severe) | Formula 11: Infection rates = (contact number | Formula 17: Mortality rate = (critically ill patients |
|
| ||
| Formula 6: Critically ill patients = INTEG (rate of severe − recovery rate 2 − mortality rate) | Formula 12: Diagnostic rate = (Latent patients/ | Formula 18: Total number = (The number of cure + vulnerable population + the number of deaths) |
Constants: transmission coefficient (C1 = 0.24), number of contacts (C2 = 8), vaccination (C3 = 0.8), coefficient of cure 1 (C4 = 0.8), coefficient of cure 2 (C5 = 0.6), coefficient of death (C6 = 0.15), T1–T6. All data are set based on real data.
Evaluation index system of coordinated program of emergency supplies.
| The dimension | Indicators | Symbol | Attribute of a metric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mutual satisfaction |
|
| Positive |
| Demander's perceived satisfaction |
| Positive | |
|
| |||
| Material satisfaction | Supply side material satisfaction rate |
| Positive |
| Demand side material satisfaction rate |
| Positive | |
|
| |||
| Cost | The cost of transporting materials |
| Negative |
| The value cost of material loss |
| Negative | |
|
| |||
| Time | Time for material response |
| Negative |
| Transportation time of materials |
| Negative | |
Evaluation index values of coordinated programs for emergency supplies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.72 | 0.77 | 0.7 | 0.71 | 22.4 | 3.7 | 5.2 | 9.2 |
|
| 0.78 | 0.48 | 0.75 | 0.63 | 20.8 | 4.6 | 6.7 | 14.1 |
|
| 0.71 | 0.39 | 0.73 | 0.69 | 25 | 4.1 | 7.2 | 13 |
|
| 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 27.2 | 3.2 | 5.7 | 11.2 |
The dimensionless result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.4545 | 1.0000 | 0.1667 | 0.7273 | 0.7500 | 0.6429 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
|
| 1.0000 | 0.2368 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.2500 | 0.0000 |
|
| 0.3636 | 0.0000 | 0.6667 | 0.5455 | 0.3438 | 0.3571 | 0.0000 | 0.2245 |
|
| 0.0000 | 0.8684 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.7500 | 0.5918 |
Entropy value, coefficient of difference, and weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entropy | 0.7198 | 0.6962 | 0.6615 | 0.7710 | 0.7342 | 0.7354 | 0.7032 | 0.6874 |
| Coefficient of difference | 0.2802 | 0.3038 | 0.3385 | 0.2290 | 0.2658 | 0.2646 | 0.2968 | 0.3126 |
| The weight | 0.1223 | 0.1326 | 0.1477 | 0.1000 | 0.1160 | 0.1155 | 0.1295 | 0.1364 |
Comprehensive scores.
|
| 0.3575 |
|
| 0.2344 |
|
| 0.1587 |
|
| 0.2494 |
Summary of the results of “0–4 scoring method”.
| Functional items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The total score of the function | The importance factor of function | The sorting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0.151 | 4 |
|
| 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0.143 | 5 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 19 | 0.169 | 2 |
|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 18 | 0.161 | 3 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0.045 | 8 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0.054 | 7 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 19 | 0.170 | 1 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 0.107 | 6 |
| The total | 112 | 1 |
Summary of the scoring results of each scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total score | The sorting | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 20 | 2 |
| Plan | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 4 |
| Plan | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 3 |
| Plan | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 23 | 1 |
A summary of the revised scoring results of each scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total score | The sorting | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | 0.453 | 0.429 | 0.338 | 0.483 | 0.09 | 0.108 | 0.68 | 0.428 | 3.009 | 2 |
| Plan | 0.604 | 0.286 | 0.676 | 0.161 | 0.18 | 0.054 | 0.34 | 0.107 | 2.408 | 3 |
| Plan | 0.453 | 0.143 | 0.676 | 0.322 | 0.135 | 0.162 | 0.17 | 0.214 | 2.275 | 4 |
| Plan | 0.151 | 0.572 | 0.338 | 0.644 | 0.045 | 0.216 | 0.68 | 0.428 | 3.074 | 1 |
Comprehensive score of subjective and objective evaluation.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composite scores | 3.009 | 2.408 | 2.275 | 3.074 |
Figure 5Simulation of patients with mild illness. Number of patients with mild illnesses increases and then decreases.
Figure 6Simulation of patients with critical illness. Number of critically ill patients increases and then decreases.
Figure 7Simulation of close contacts. The number of close contacts first increases and then stabilizes.
Figure 8Simulation of healing numbers. The number of cured patients first increases and then gradually stabilizes.
Figure 9Comparison of the number of serious illnesses. The two curves correspond to the changes in the number of critically ill patients at different vaccination rates.
Figure 10Comparison of the number of deaths. The two curves correspond to the changes in the number of deaths at different vaccination rates.
Figure 11Comparison of the number of close contacts. The two curves correspond to the changes in the number of close contacts at different isolation intensities.