Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T20:04:41.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modelling Ebola within a community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2016

R. N. LEANDER*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
W. S. GOFF
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
C. W. MURPHY
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
S. A. PULIDO
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Professor R. N. Leander, Department of Mathematical Sciences,Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA. (Email: rachel.leander@mtsu.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The 2014 Ebola epidemic was the largest on record. It evidenced the need for improved models of the spread of Ebola. In this research we focus on modelling Ebola within a small village or community. Specifically, we investigate the potential of basic Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) models to describe the initial Ebola outbreak, which occurred in Meliandou, Guinea. Data from the World Health Organization is used to compare the accuracy of various models in order to select the most accurate models of transmission and disease-induced responses. Our results suggest that (i) density-dependent transmission and mortality-induced behavioural changes shaped the course of the Ebola epidemic in Meliandou, while (ii) frequency-dependent transmission, disease-induced emigration, and infection-induced behavioural changes are not consistent with the data from this epidemic.

Information

Type
Original Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 
Figure 0

Table 1. Parameters

Figure 1

Fig. 1. (a) Simulations of the basic SEIR models with either density-dependent (green) or frequency-dependent (blue) transmission. The red ×s denote the data. (b) The early epidemic.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. (a) Simulations of the models with infection-induced emigration. For the density-dependent model u* = 15·8764 per individual per day, the error is E = 116·6211, and the final population size is Nf = 108 individuals. For the frequency-dependent model u* = 4·8833 per individual per day, E = 99·3366, and Nf = 0 individuals. (b) Simulations of the models with mortality-induced emigration. For the density-dependent model u* = 3·7825 per individual per day, the error is E = 86·4491, and the final population size is Nf = 0 individuals. For the frequency-dependent model u* = 1 per individual per day, E = 82·4230, and Nf = 0 individuals.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Final population size vs. mean squared error for (a) frequency-dependent and (b) density-dependent models of transmission, with infection-induced emigration.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Simulations of the models with R0 dependent on the infectious. For the density-dependent model the optimal value of k is k* = 5·1977 × 10−5, the maximal basic reproductive ratio is $R_m^{\ast} = 1 \!\cdot\! 0109$, the error is E = 422·7983, and the final population size is Nf = 281 individuals. For the frequency-dependent model: k* = 0·0133, $R_m^{\ast} = 0 \!\cdot\! 9873$, E = 440·6276, and Nf = 277 individuals. The frequency-dependent model is shown in blue, the density-dependent model is shown in green.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Simulations of the models with R0 dependent on mortality. For the density-dependent model the optimal value of k is k* = 817·1867, the maximal basic reproductive ratio is $R_m^{\ast} = 3 \!\cdot\! 3924$, the error is E = 8·3390, and the final population size is Nf = 285 individuals. For the frequency-dependent model: k* = 401 ·7542, $R_m^{\ast} = 5 \!\cdot\! 8479$, E = 33·2964, and Nf = 287 individuals. The frequency-dependent model is shown in blue, the density-dependent model is shown in green.