Presentation Information
[SS07-06]A Comparative Study of Reaction-Diffusion SIS Models for Core-Peripheral Spatial Containment: Control Zones vs. Isolation Zones
*Xianning Liu1 (1. Southwest University (China))
Keywords:
SIS epidemic reaction-diffusion model,control zone,isolation zone,basic reproduction number,disease containment measures
In infectious disease containment, the rational formulation and selection of control measures and isolation measures, as two classic approaches, are of utmost importance. In this talk we
use susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) epidemic reaction-diffusion models to conduct a comparative analysis of four disease containment measures: core control zone, peripheral control zone, core isolation zone, and peripheral isolation zone, in spatially heterogeneous environments. Key findings reveal that control zones universally reduce the basic reproduction number of the disease, whereas isolation zones exhibit context-dependent efficacy. Specifically, setting up isolation zones in low risk areas can reduce the basic reproduction number of the disease, but isolation zones in high-risk areas may exacerbate the outbreak of the epidemic. Allowing infected individuals to move freely throughout the region and centralizing disease control in the core (resp. peripheral) zone is more effective than isolating them in the peripheral (resp. core) zone. For effective containment, prioritize the establishment of control zones in high-risk areas and establish isolation zones in low-risk areas where medical resources are adequate. Furthermore, in the case of extremely high disease infectivity, control zones preserve susceptible individuals within them, while isolation zones lead to collapse of the entire region. Finally, numerical simulations validate the theoretical results.
use susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) epidemic reaction-diffusion models to conduct a comparative analysis of four disease containment measures: core control zone, peripheral control zone, core isolation zone, and peripheral isolation zone, in spatially heterogeneous environments. Key findings reveal that control zones universally reduce the basic reproduction number of the disease, whereas isolation zones exhibit context-dependent efficacy. Specifically, setting up isolation zones in low risk areas can reduce the basic reproduction number of the disease, but isolation zones in high-risk areas may exacerbate the outbreak of the epidemic. Allowing infected individuals to move freely throughout the region and centralizing disease control in the core (resp. peripheral) zone is more effective than isolating them in the peripheral (resp. core) zone. For effective containment, prioritize the establishment of control zones in high-risk areas and establish isolation zones in low-risk areas where medical resources are adequate. Furthermore, in the case of extremely high disease infectivity, control zones preserve susceptible individuals within them, while isolation zones lead to collapse of the entire region. Finally, numerical simulations validate the theoretical results.