Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:40:30.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An epidemic model with exposure-dependent severities

Part of: Limit theorems Special processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

Frank Ball  and
Tom Britton
Frank Ball*
Affiliation:
The University of Nottingham
Tom Britton*
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
*
∗Postal address: School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. Email address: frank.ball@nottingham.ac.uk
∗∗Postal address: Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Email address: tom.britton@math.su.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We consider a stochastic model for the spread of a susceptible–infective–removed (SIR) epidemic among a closed, finite population, in which there are two types of severity of infectious individuals, namely mild and severe. The type of severity depends on the amount of infectious exposure an individual receives, in that infectives are always initially mild but may become severe if additionally exposed. Large-population properties of the model are derived. In particular, a coupling argument is used to provide a rigorous branching process approximation to the early stages of an epidemic, and an embedding argument is used to derive a strong law and an associated central limit theorem for the final outcome of an epidemic in the event of a major outbreak. The basic reproduction number, which determines whether or not a major outbreak can occur given few initial infectives, depends only on parameters of the mild infectious state, whereas the final outcome in the event of a major outbreak depends also on parameters of the severe state. Moreover, the limiting final size proportions need not even be continuous in the model parameters.

Keywords

Stochastic epidemicfinal sizebasic reproduction numberinfections of varying severityexposurebranching processcouplingembedded processweak convergencecentral limit theorem

MSC classification

Primary: 92D30: Epidemiology
Secondary: 60F99: None of the above, but in this section 60K99: None of the above, but in this section
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 932 - 949
Copyright
© Applied Probability Trust 2005 

References

Aaby, P., Bukh, J., Lisse, I. M. and da Silva, M. C. (1988). Further community studies on the role of overcrowding and intensive exposure on measles mortality. Rev. Infect. Dis. 10, 474–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aldous, D. J. (1985). Exchangeability and related topics. In Ecole d'Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XIII (Lecture Notes Math. 1117), ed. Hennequin, P. L., Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–198.Google Scholar
Andersson, H. and Britton, T. (2000). Stochastic Epidemic Models and Their Statistical Analysis (Lecture Notes Statist. 151). Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, F. G. and Donnelly, P. J. (1995). Strong approximations for epidemic models. Stoch. Process. Appl. 55, 1–21.Google Scholar
Ball, F. G. and Neal, P. J. (2003). The great circle epidemic model. Stoch. Process. Appl. 107, 233–268.Google Scholar
Butler, J. C. et al. (1994). Household-acquisition of measles and illness severity in an urban community in the United States. Epidemiol. Infect. 112, 569–577.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, D., Diekmann, O. and de Jong, M. C. M. (2000). Subcritical endemic steady states in mathematical models for animal infections with incomplete immunity. Math. Biosci. 165, 1–25.Google Scholar
Heesterbeek, J. A. P. and Dietz, K. (1996). The concept of R_0 in epidemic theory. Statist. Neerlandica 50, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefèvre, C. (1990). Stochastic epidemic models for S-I-R infectious diseases: a brief survey of the recent theory. In Stochastic Processes in Epidemic Theory (Lecture Notes Biomath. 86), eds Gabriel, J.-P., Lefèvre, C. and Picard, P., Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Mangada, M. N. M. and Igarashi, A. (1998). Molecular and in vitro analysis of eight dengue type 2 viruses isolated from patients exhibiting different disease severities. Virology 244, 458–466.Google Scholar
Medley, G. F., Lindop, N. A., Edmunds, W. J. and Nokes, D. J. (2001). Hepatitis-B virus endemicity: heterogeneity, catastrophic dynamics and control. Nature Medicine 7, 619–624.Google Scholar
Morley, D. C. and Aaby, P. (1997). Managing measles: size of infecting dose may be important. British Medical J. 314, 1692.Google Scholar
Parang, N. M. and Archana, C. (2004). Varicella. eMedicine September 15, 2004. Available at http://www.emedicine. com/ped/topic2385.htm.Google Scholar
Scalia-Tomba, G.-P. (1985). Asymptotic final size distribution for some chain-binomial models. Adv. Appl. Prob. 17, 477–495.Google Scholar
Scalia-Tomba, G.-P. (1990). On the asymptotic final size distribution of epidemics in heterogeneous populations. In Stochastic Processes in Epidemic Theory (Lecture Notes Biomath. 86), eds Gabriel, J.-P., Lefèvre, C. and Picard, P., Springer, Berlin, pp. 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellke, T. (1983). On the asymptotic distribution of the size of a stochastic epidemic. J. Appl. Prob. 20, 390–394.Google Scholar
Van den Driessche, P. and Watmough, J. (2002). Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission. Math. Biosci. 180, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Vaart, A. W. and Wellner, J. A. (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. With Applications to Statistics. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Whittle, P. (1955). The outcome of a stochastic epidemic—a note on Bailey's paper. Biometrika 42, 116–122.Google Scholar