Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2017 Nov 21;492:1604–1624. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2017.11.085

The global dynamics for a stochastic SIS epidemic model with isolation

Yiliang Chen 1, Buyu Wen 1, Zhidong Teng 1,*
PMCID: PMC7127643  PMID: 32288103

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the dynamical behavior for a stochastic SIS epidemic model with isolation which is as an important strategy for the elimination of infectious diseases. It is assumed that the stochastic effects manifest themselves mainly as fluctuation in the transmission coefficient, the death rate and the proportional coefficient of the isolation of infective. It is shown that the extinction and persistence in the mean of the model are determined by a threshold value R0S. That is, if R0S<1, then disease dies out with probability one, and if R0S>1, then the disease is stochastic persistent in the means with probability one. Furthermore, the existence of a unique stationary distribution is discussed, and the sufficient conditions are established by using the Lyapunov function method. Finally, some numerical examples are carried out to confirm the analytical results.

Keywords: Stochastic SIQS epidemic model, Threshold value, Persistence in the mean, Extinction, Stationary distribution

Highlights

  • A stochastic SIS epidemic model with isolation and multiple noises perturbation is proposed.

  • The criteria on the extinction and persistence in the mean with probability one are obtained.

  • The sufficient conditions for the existence of unique stationary distribution are established.

1. Introduction

As is well-known, in the theory of epidemiology the quarantine/isolation is an important strategy for the control and elimination of infectious diseases. Such as, in order to control SARS, the Chinese government is the first to use isolation. The various types of classical epidemic models with quarantine/isolation have been investigated in many articles. See, for example [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]] and the references cited therein.

Particularly, in [1], Herbert et al. studied the following SIS epidemic model with isolation

S(t)=AβISμS+γI+ξQ,I(t)=βIS(μ+γ+δ+α)I,Q(t)=δI(μ+ξ+α)Q. (1.1)

where S(t) denotes the number of individuals who are susceptible to an infection, I(t) denotes the number of individuals who are infectious but not isolated, Q(t) is the number of individuals who are isolated. A is the recruitment rate of S(t), β is the transmission rate coefficient between compartment S(t) and I(t), μ is natural death rate of S(t), I(t) and Q(t), α is the disease-related death rate of I(t), δ is the proportional coefficient of isolated for the infection, γ and ξ are the rates where individuals recover and return to S(t) from I(t) and Q(t), respectively. All parameters are usually assumed to be nonnegative.

In addition, we see that the quarantine/isolation strategies also are introduced and investigated in many practical epidemic model, such as the emerging infectious disease, two-strain avian influenza, childhood diseases, the Middle East respiratory syndrome, Ebola epidemics, Dengue epidemic, H1N1 flu epidemic, Hepatitis B and C, Tuberculosis, etc. See, for example [[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]] and the references cited therein.

As a matter of fact, epidemic systems are inevitably subjected to environmental white noise. Therefore, the studies for the stochastic epidemic models have more practical significance. In recent years, the stochastic epidemic models with the quarantine and isolation have been investigated in articles [[29], [30], [31], [32]]. Particularly, in [29] Zhang et al. investigated the dynamics of the deterministic and stochastic SIQS epidemic model with an isolation and nonlinear incidence. The sufficient conditions on the extinction almost surely of the disease and the existence of stationary distribution of the model are established. Zhang et al. in [30] discussed the threshold of a stochastic SIQS epidemic model. The criteria on the extinction and permanence in the mean of global positive solutions with probability one are established. Besides, we also see that the stochastic persistence and the existence of stationary distribution for the various stochastic epidemic models and population models have been widely investigated. Some important recent works can been found in [[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]] and the references cited therein.

Motivated by the works [[1], [2], [4], [5], [29], [30], [31], [32]], in this paper as an extension of model (1.1) we firstly assume that the disease-related death rates of isolation and no-isolation are different, respectively, denote by α2 and α3. Then, we further define μ1=μ, μ2=μ+α2 and μ3=μ+α3 for the convenience. It is clear that μ1min{μ2,μ3}. Next, we introduce randomness into model (1.1), by replacing the parameters β, μi(i=1,2,3) and δ with ββ+σ1W˙1(t), μ2μ2+σ2W˙2(t), μ3μ3+σ3W˙3(t), δδ+σ4W˙4(t) and μ1μ1+σ5W˙5(t), where Wi(t)(i=1,2,3,4,5) are independent standard Brownian motion defined on some probability space (Ω,F,P) and parameter σi>0 represents the intensity of Wi(t). Thus, we establish the following stochastic SIS epidemic model with multi-parameters white noises perturbations and the isolation of infection.

dS=[AβISμ1S+γI+ξQ]dtσ1SIdW1(t)+σ5SdW5(t),dI=[βIS(μ2+γ+δ)I]dt+σ1SIdW1(t)+σ2IdW2(t)σ4IdW4(t),dQ=[δI(μ3+ξ)Q]dt+σ3QdW3(t)+σ4IdW4(t). (1.2)

Our purpose in this paper is to study the stochastic extinction and persistence, and the stationary distribution of model (1.2). We will establish a series of sufficient conditions to assure the extinction and persistence in the mean of the model with probability one, and the existence of unique stationary distribution for model (1.2) by using the theory of stochastic processes, the Ito’s formula and the Liapunov function method.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the preliminaries and some useful lemmas. In Section 3, the criteria on the extinction and persistence in the mean with probability one for model (1.2) are stated and proved. In Section 4, the criteria on the existence of a unique stationary distribution for model (1.2) are stated and proved. In Section 5, the numerical examples are carried out to illustrate the main theoretical results.

2. Preliminaries

We denote R+3={(x1,x2,x3):xi>0,i=1,2,3}. For an integrable function f(t) defined on [0,), denote f(t)=1t0tf(s)ds.

As the preliminaries, we give the following lemmas.

Lemma 2.1

For deterministic model (1.1) , let R0=βAμ(δ+γ+μ+α). We have following conclusions.

(1) If R0<1, then model (1.1) has only a disease-free equilibrium E0(Aμ,0,0), which is globally asymptotically stable.

(2) If R0>1, then model (1.1) also has an endemic equilibrium E(S,I,Q), which is globally asymptotically stable, where

S=AμR0,I=A(11R0)(μ+α)(1+δμ+ξ+α),Q=δIμ+ξ+α.

The proof of Lemma 2.1 can be found in [1]. We hence omit it here.

Lemma 2.2

For any given initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3, model (1.2) has a unique global positive solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)). That is, solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) is defined for all t0 and remains in R+3 with probability one.

Lemma 2.2 can be proved by using the similar method given in [29].

Lemma 2.3

Let (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3, then

lim supt(S(t)+I(t)+Q(t))<a.s. (2.1)

Moreover,

lim suptS(t)+I(t)+Q(t)Aμ1a.s. (2.2)

Proof

By model (1.2), we have

d(S+I+Q)=[Aμ1(S+I+Q)α2Iα3Q]dt+σ2IdW2(t)+σ3QdW3(t)+σ5SdW5(t), (2.3)

where α2=μ2μ10 and α3=μ3μ10. Solving this equation, we further obtain that

S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)=Aμ1+[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))Aμ1]eμ1tα20teμ1(ts)I(s)dsα30teμ1(ts)Q(s)ds+σ20teμ1(ts)I(s)dW2(s)+σ30teμ1(ts)Q(s)dW3(s)+σ50teμ1(ts)S(s)dW5(s)Aμ1+[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))Aμ1]eμ1t+M(t)a.s., (2.4)

where

M(t)=σ20teμ1(ts)I(s)dW2(s)+σ30teμ1(ts)Q(s)dW3(s)+σ50teμ1(ts)S(s)dW5(s).

Clearly, M(t) is a continuous local martingale with M(0)=0. Define

X(t)=X(0)+A(t)U(t)+M(t),

where X(0)=S(0)+I(0)+Q(0), A(t)=Aμ1(1eμ1t) and U(t)=(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))(1eμ1t). By (2.4) we have S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)X(t)a.s. for all t0. It is clear that A(t) and U(t) are continuous adapted increasing processes on t0 with A(0)=U(0)=0. By Theorem 3.9 in [44], we obtain that limtX(t)<a.s. Thus, conclusion (2.1) is true.

Set

M2(t)=0tI(s)dW2(s),M2(t)=0teμ1(ts)I(s)dW2(s),M3(t)=0tQ(s)dW3(s),M3(t)=0teμ1(ts)Q(s)dW3(s),M5(t)=0tS(s)dW5(s),M5(t)=0teμ1(ts)S(s)dW5(s).

Since the quadratic variations

M2(t),M2(t)=0tI2(s)ds(supt0I2(t))t,M2(t),M2(t)=0te2μ1(ts)I2(s)ds(supt0I2(t))t,

by the large number theorem for martingales (See [[44], [45]]), we have

limt1tM2(t)=0,limt1tM2(t)=0a.s. (2.5)

Similarly, we also have

limt1tM3(t)=0,limt1tM3(t)=0,limt1tM5(t)=0,limt1tM5(t)=0a.s. (2.6)

Since

M(t)=σ2t0t0seμ1(su)I(u)dW2(u)ds+σ3t0t0seμ1(su)Q(u)dW3(u)ds+σ5t0t0seμ(su)S(u)dW5(u)ds=σ2μ1t(0tI(u)dW2(u)0teμ1(tu)I(u)dW2(u))+σ3μ1t(0tQ(u)dW3(u)0teμ1(tu)Q(u)dW3(u))+σ5μ1t(0tS(u)dW5(u)0teμ1(tu)S(u)dW5(u)),

by (2.5), (2.6), we obtain limtM(t)=0. Since

limt1t0t[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))Aμ1]eμ1sds=limt1μ1t[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0)Aμ1)(1eμ1t)]=0,

form (2.4), it follows that conclusion (2.2) is true. This completes the proof.  □

Lemma 2.4

Let (S(t),I(t),R(t)) be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3 and N(t)=S(t)+I(t)+Q(t). Then

S(t)=Aμ1[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)+K(t) (2.7)

and

N2(t)=Aμ1N(t)α2μ1I(t)N(t)α3μ1Q(t)N(t)+σ522μ1S2(t)+σ222μ1I2(t)+σ322μ1Q2(t)+C(t), (2.8)

where

C(t)=σ2μ11t0tN(s)I(s)dW2(s)+σ3μ1t0tN(s)Q(s)dW3(s)+σ5μ1t0tN(s)S(s)dW5(s)+12μ1t(N2(0)N2(t)) (2.9)

and

K(t)=σ3ξμ1(μ3+ξ)t0tQ(s)dW3(s)+μ3μ1(μ3+ξ)t(Q(t)Q(0))+σ2μ1t0tI(s)dW2(s)σ4μ3μ1(μ3+ξ)t0tI(s)dW4(s)+σ5μ1t0tS(s)dW5(s)1μ1t[S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))]. (2.10)

Proof

Using Ito’s formula, by (2.3) we have

dN2(t)=LN2(t)dt+2N(t)(σ2IdW2(t)+σ3QdW3(t)+σ5SdW5(t)), (2.11)

where

LN2(t)=2AN(t)2μ1N2(t)2α2I(t)N(t)2α3Q(t)N(t)+σ22I2(t)+σ32Q2(t)+σ52S2(t).

Integrating (2.11) from 0 to t, we further obtain

N2(t)N2(0)=2A0tN(s)ds2μ10tN2(s)ds2α20tI(s)N(s)ds2α30tN(s)Q(s)ds+σ220tI2(s)ds+σ320tQ2(s)ds+σ520tS2(s)ds+2σ20tN(s)I(s)dW2(s)+2σ30tN(s)Q(s)dW3(s)+2σ50tN(s)S(s)dW5(s). (2.12)

Then, dividing t on both sides (2.12), it follows that

N2(t)=Aμ1N(t)α2μ1I(t)N(t)α3μ1Q(t)N(t)+σ522μ1S2(t)+σ222μ1I2(t)+σ322μ1Q2(t)+C(t),

where C(t) is given in (2.9). Thus, we finally obtain (2.8).

Taking the integration for the third equation of model (1.2) yields

Q(t)Q(0)=δ0tI(s)ds(μ3+ξ)0tQ(s)ds+σ30tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ40tI(s)dW4(s). (2.13)

Dividing t on both sides of Eq. (2.13), we have

Q(t)=δμ3+ξI(t)+σ3(μ3+ξ)t0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ4(μ3+ξ)t0tI(s)dW4(s)1(μ3+ξ)t(Q(t)Q(0)). (2.14)

Integrating (2.3) from 0 to t, and then dividing t on both sides, we have

1t(S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))=Aμ1S(t)μ2I(t)μ3Q(t)+σ21t0tI(s)dW2(s)+σ31t0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ51t0tS(s)dW5(s).

Consequently,

S(t)=Aμ1μ2μ1I(t)μ3μ1Q(t)+σ2μ1t0tI(s)dW2(s)+σ3μ1t0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ5μ1t0tS(s)dW5(s)1μ1t(S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))). (2.15)

By substituting (2.14) into (2.15), we obtain

S(t)=Aμ1[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)+K(t),

where K(t) is given in (2.10). Thus, we finally obtain (2.7). This completes the proof.  □

Lemma 2.5

Assume that functions YC(R+×Ω,R+) and ZC(R+×Ω,R+) satisfies limtZ(t)t=0a.s. If there are two constants ν0>0 and ν>0 such that

lnY(t)=ν0tν0tY(s)ds+Z(t)a.s.

for all t0, then

lim inft1t0tY(s)ds=ν0νa.s.

Lemma 2.5 can be found in Liu et al. [46].

3. Persistence and extinction

Define

R0S=1μ2+δ+γ(Aβμ112σ2212σ42A2σ122μ12).

Theorem 3.1

Assume σ5=0 in model (1.2) . Let (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) be the solution of system (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3. If R0S>1, then lim inftS(t)>0, lim inftI(t)>0 and lim inftQ(t)>0a.s.. That is, model (1.2) is stochastic persistent in the mean with probability one.

Proof

Applying Ito’s formula, we have

dlnI(t)=[βS(μ2+δ+γ)12σ2212σ4212σ12S2]dt+σ1SdW1(t)+σ2dW2(t)σ4dW4(t). (3.1)

Integrating (3.1) from 0 to t and then dividing t on both sides, we have

lnI(t)lnI(0)t=βS(t)(μ2+δ+γ)12σ2212σ4212σ12S2(t)+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+1tσ2W2(t)σ41tW4(t). (3.2)

From (2.7), we have

lnI(t)lnI(0)t=Aβμ1β[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)+βK(t)(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)12σ12S2(t). (3.3)

From (2.8) in Lemma 2.4, when σ5=0 we have

N2(t)Aμ1N(t)+σ222μ1I2(t)+σ322μ1Q2(t)+C(t). (3.4)

From Lemma 2.3, for solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) of model (1.2), without loss of generality, there is a constant L>0 such that I(t)L and Q(t)La.s. for all t0. Thus, we further obtain from (3.4),

N2(t)Aμ1N(t)+Lσ222μ1I(t)+Lσ322μ1Q(t)+C(t). (3.5)

On the other hand, from (2.2) in Lemma 2.3 we have that for any enough small ε>0 there is a T>0 such that

N(t)<Aμ1+εa.s. (3.6)

for all tT.

By substituting (2.14), (3.6) into (3.5), we obtain for all tT

N2(t)Aμ1(Aμ1+ε)+Lσ222μ1I(t)+Lσ32δ2μ1(μ3+ξ)I(t)+H(t)+C(t), (3.7)

where

H(t)=Lσ322μ1σ3(μ3+ξ)t0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ4(μ3+ξ)t0tI(s)dW4(s)1(μ3+ξ)t(Q(t)Q(0)). (3.8)

Because of S2(t)N2(t), substituting (3.7) into (3.3) we further have for all tT

lnI(t)lnI(0)tAβμ1β[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)+βK(t)(μ1+α2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)12σ12Aμ1(Aμ1+ε)12σ12[Lσ222μ1+Lσ32δ2μ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)12σ12(H(t)+C(t)).

Consequently, for all tT

[β(μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ))+σ122(Lσ222μ1+Lσ32δ2μ1(μ3+ξ))]I(t)Aβμ1+βK(t)(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)12σ12Aμ1(Aμ1+ε)12σ12(H(t)+C(t))1t(lnI(t)lnI(0)). (3.9)

By the large number theorem for martingales, Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we have from (2.9), (2.10), (3.8)

limtC(t)=0,limtK(t)=0,limtH(t)=0,limt1t(lnI(t)lnI(0))=0

and

limt1t0tSdW1(s)=0,limt1tW2(t)=0,limt1tW4(t)=0.

Therefore, from (3.9) and the arbitrariness of ε we finally obtain

lim inftI(t)1B[βAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)12σ12(Aμ1)2]=μ2+δ+γB(R0S1)>0a.s., (3.10)

where

B=β(μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ2+ξ))+σ122(Lσ222μ1+Lσ32δ2μ1(μ3+ξ)). (3.11)

From the first equation of model (1.2), we easily obtain

S(t)S(0)t=1t0t[AβSIμ1S+γI+ξQ]dsσ1t0tSIdW1(s)A(βL+μ1)S(t)σ1tM1(t)a.s., (3.12)

where M1(t)=0tSIdW1(s). Since the quadratic variation

M1(t),M1(t)=0tS2(s)I2(s)dsL4t,

by the large number theorem for martingales we have limt1tM1(t)=0. Therefore, by Lemma 2.3 and (3.12) we further have

lim inftS(t)AβL+μ1>0a.s.

From the third equation of model (1.2), we directly have

Q(t)Q(0)t=δI(t)(μ3+ξ)Q(t)+σ3t0tQds+σ4t0tIdsa.s.

Hence, we further have

lim inftQ(t)=δμ3+ξlim inftI(t)δ(μ2+δ+γ)B(μ3+ξ)(R0S1)>0a.s.

This shows that model (1.2) is persistent in the mean with probability one. This completes the proof.  □

Remark 3.1

It is unfortunate that in Theorem 3.1 σ5=0 is assumed. From the proof of Theorem 3.1we see that this assumption only is used to deal with the term S2(t) in (3.3). Therefore, an interesting open problem is to establish a similar result like Theorem 3.1for model (1.2)in σ5>0.

In Theorem 3.1we only obtain the persistence in the mean of model (1.2). However, as a consequence of Theorem 3.1we have the following result on the permanence in the mean for the disease in model (1.2).

Corollary 3.1

Assume σ5=0 in model (1.2). Let (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3. If R0S>1 , and σ1=0 or σ2=0 and σ3=0, then the disease I(t) is permanent in the mean with probability one.

In fact, when σ1=0 or σ2=0 and σ3=0, from (3.11) we have B=β(μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)) , which is independent for L . Therefore, by Theorem 3.1 , we obtain from (3.10) that

lim inftI(t)μ2+δ+γB(R0S1)a.s.

which implies that the disease I(t) is permanent in the mean with probability one.

Remark 3.2

From the above Corollary 3.1, we can propose an important open problem. That is, when R0S>1, σ1>0 and σ2>0 or σ3>0, whether we can establish the permanence in the mean of the disease I for model (1.2). An example will be given in Section 5to show that the result can hold.

Theorem 3.2

Assume σ1=0 in model (1.2). Let (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) be the solution of system (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3. If R0S>1 , then we have

limtI(t)=[βAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)](μ3+ξ)μ1βμ2(μ3+ξ)+βδμ3Ia.s.limtQ(t)=δμ3+ξIa.s.,limtS(t)=Aμ1[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]Ia.s.

Proof

Applying Ito’s formula, directly computing, we have

d(lnI+βμ1N)=(βS(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42))dt+σ2dW2(t)σ4dW4(t)+βμ1(Aμ1Sμ2Iμ3Q)dt+βμ1σ2IdW2(t)+βμ1σ3QdW3(t)+βμ1σ5SdW5(t)=(βAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42))dt(βμ2μ1I+βμ3μ1Q)dt+σ2dW2(t)σ4dW4(t)+βμ1σ2IdW2(t)+βμ1σ3QdW3(t)+βμ1σ5SdW5(t). (3.13)

Integrating (3.13) and then dividing t yields

1t(lnI(t)+βμ1N(t))1t(lnI(0)+βμ1N(0))=βAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)βμ2μ1I(t)βμ3μ1Q(t)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)+βσ2μ1t0tI(s)dW2(s)+βσ3μ1t0tQ(s)dW3(s)+βσ5μ1t0tS(s)dW5(s).

From (2.14), we further have

1tlnI(t)=βAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)[βμ2μ1+βμ3δμ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)+B(t),

where

B(t)=1t[βμ1N(t)lnI(0)βμ1N(0)]+σ3βξμ1(μ3+ξ))1t0tQ(s)dW3(s)βμ3μ1(σ4(μ3+ξ)t0tI(s)dW4(s)1(μ3+ξ)t(Q(t)Q(0)))+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)+βμ1σ21t0tI(s)dW2(s)+βμ1σ51t0tS(s)dW5(s).

By the large number theorem for martingales and Lemma 2.3, we have limtB(t)=0a.s. Therefore, by Lemma 2.5 we finally can obtain that

limtI(t)=[βAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)](μ3+ξ)μ1βμ2(μ3+ξ)+βδμ3Ia.s.

Furthermore, from (2.14) we can obtain

limtQ(t)=δμ3+ξIa.s.,

and from (2.7) we further obtain

limtS(t)=Aμ1[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]Ia.s.

This completes the proof.  □

Remark 3.3

Particularly, when σi=0(i=1,2,3,4,5) and μ2=μ3=μ1+α, then the stochastic model (1.2)degenerates into the deterministic model (1.1). We also have R0S=R0=βAμ1(δ+γ+μ1+α). From Theorem 3.2, when R0>1 we can obtain that for any solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) of model (1.1)with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3,

limtS(t)=Aμ1R0,limtI(t)=A(11R0)(μ1+α)(1+δμ1+α+ξ),limtQ(t)=δμ1+α+ξI.

Therefore, Theorem 3.2can be regarded as an extension of the conclusion (2) of Lemma 2.1for the deterministic model (1.1)into the corresponding stochastic model (1.2).

Remark 3.4

It is a pity that in Theorem 3.2 σ1=0 is assumed. Therefore, an interesting open problem is to establish a similar result for model (1.2)in σ1>0.

Theorem 3.3

Let (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3 . Suppose that one of the following two conditions holds:

(A)β22σ12(μ2+δ+γ+12(σ22+σ42))<0,(B)βAμ1σ12,R0S<1.

Then the disease I(t) almost surely exponentially dies out. That is

lim suptlnI(t)tβ22σ12(μ2+δ+γ+12σ22+12σ42)<0a.s.if(A)holds (3.14)

and

lim suptlnI(t)t(μ2+δ+γ)(R0S1)<0a.s.if(B)holds. (3.15)

Furthermore, we also have that limtS(t)=Aμ1a.s. and lim suptlnQ(t)tca.s. for some constant c>0 . That is, S(t) in the mean almost surely converges to Aμ1 and Q(t) almost surely exponentially converges to zero.

Proof

Since for any t>0, (1t0tS(s)ds)21t0tS2(s)ds, from (3.2) we have

lnI(t)tlnI(0)t+βS(t)(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)12σ12(S(t))2+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t). (3.16)

If condition (B) holds, then from (2.7), (3.16) we have

lnI(t)tβAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)β[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)+βK(t)12σ12[Aμ1(μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ))I(t)+K(t)]2+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)+lnI(0)t.

Therefore,

lnI(t)tβAμ1(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)A2σ122μ12[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)](βAμ1σ12)I(t)+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)[(μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ))I(t)]2+Φ(t)+lnI(0)t+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t),

where

Φ(t)=βK(t)σ122K2(t)+σ12[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I(t)K(t)σ12Aμ1K(t).

By the large number theorem for martingales, Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we have limtΦ(t)=0a.s. Therefore, we finally obtain

lim suptlnI(t)t(μ2+δ+γ)(R0S1)<0a.s.

If condition (A) holds, then from (3.2) we have

lnI(t)tlnI(0)t+βS(t)(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)12σ12(S(t))2+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)=lnI(0)t+β22σ12(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)12σ12[S(t)βσ12]2+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t)lnI(0)t+β22σ12(μ2+δ+γ)12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)σ41tW4(t).

Thus, we also have

lim suptlnI(t)tβ22σ12(μ2+δ+γ+12(σ22+σ42))<0a.s.

From (3.14), (3.15), there is a constant m>0 such that for almost all ωΩ there exists a T0=T0(ω)>0, when tT0 one has I(t,ω)emt. Without loss of generality, we assume that I(t,ω)emt for all t0. It follows that from the third equation of model (1.2)

dQ[δemt(μ3+ξ)Q]dt+σ3QdW3(t)+σ4IdW4(t).

Hence,

Q(t)H1(t)+H2(t)+H3(t), (3.17)

where

H1(t)=e(μ3+ξ)t+σ3W3(t)Q0,H2(t)=e(μ3+ξ)t+σ3W3(t)0te(μ3+ξ)sσ3W3(s)δemsds,H3(t)=e(μ3+ξ)t+σ3W3(t)0te(μ3+ξ)sσ3W3(s)σ4I(s)dW4(s).

It is clear that

limtlnH1(t)t=(μ3+ξ),limtlnH2(t)t=m.

Consider H3(t), choose the constants η0>0 and ε0>0 such that

μ3+ξη0σ3ε0>0,mη2σ3ε0>0.

Since limtW3(t)t=0, without loss of generality, we assume |W3(t)|ε0t for all t0. Let H3(t)=eηtH3(t), then we have

H3(t),H3(t)=0t(eη0te(μ3+ξ)t+σ3W3(t)e(μ3+ξ)sσ3W3(s)σ4I(s))2ds0te2η0te2(μ3+ξ)t+2σ3ε0te2(μ3+ξ)s+2σ3ε0sσ42e2msds=σ420te2(μ3+ξη0σ3ε0)(ts)e2(mη02σ3ε0)sds<.

By the large number theorem for martingales, we have limtH3(t)t=0. For any small enough ε>0, we can obtain

limt|H3(t)|e(η0ε)t=limtteεt|H3(t)|t=0.

Hence, limtln|H3(t)|t=η0+ε. It follows that limtln|H3(t)|tη0. Therefore, from (3.17) we finally have

lim suptlnQ(t)tmin{η0,m,μ3+ξ}<0a.s.

From the first equation of model (1.2) we have

S(t)S(0)t=AβSIμ1S+γI+ξQσ11t0tSIdW1(s)+σ51t0tSdW5(s).

By Lemma 2.3, the large number theorem of martingales, limtI(t)=0a.s. and limtQ(t)=0a.s., we have limtSI=0, limtI=0, limtQ=0, limt1t(S(t)S(0))=0, limt1t0tSdW5(s)=0a.s. and limt1t0tSIdW1(s)=0a.s.. Therefore, limtS(t)=Aμ1a.s.. This completes the proof.  □

Remark 3.5

It is easy to see that when the condition (A) holds, then we have R0S<1. Therefore, we can propose the following open problem. That is, when R0S<1, β22σ12(μ2+δ+γ+12σ22+12σ42)>0 and β<Aμ1σ12, whether we also can obtain the extinction of the disease I with probability one for model (1.2). An example is given in Section 5to show that the result can hold.

Remark 3.6

Comparing with the conclusion (1) of Lemma 2.1, we easily see that Theorem 3.3can be regarded as an extension of conclusion (1) of Lemma 2.1for the deterministic model (1.1)into the corresponding stochastic model (1.2).

In Theorem 3.3, when σ1=0, then condition (A) does not hold, and condition (B) degenerates into

R0S=1μ2+δ+γ(Aβμ112(σ22+σ42))<1. (3.18)

Therefore, as a consequence of Theorem 3.3, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 3.2

Assume that σ1=0 in model (1.2) . Let (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))R+3 . If condition (3.18) holds, then S(t) in the mean almost surely converges to Aμ1 , I(t) and Q(t) almost surely exponentially converge to zero.

4. Stationary distribution

In this section, we study the existence of unique stationary distribution of model (1.2). Before giving the main results, we introduce the following lemma.

Let x(t) be a regular temporally homogeneous Markov process in Rd described by the stochastic differential equation

dx(t)=b(x)dt+r=1kσr(x)dBr(t), (4.1)

where b(x)=(b1(x),b2(x),,bd(x)), σr(x)=(σr1(x),σr2(x),,σrd(x)) and Br(t)(r=1,2,,k)) are independent standard Brownian motions defined on some probability space (Ω,F,P). The diffusion matrix for Eq. (4.1) is defined as follows

A(x)=(aij(x))d×d,aij(x)=r=1kσri(x)σrj(x).

Lemma 4.1

(See [ [44], [45]]) Assume that there exists a bounded domain URd with regular boundary, satisfying the following properties.

(i) In the domain U and some neighborhood thereof, the smallest eigenvalue of the diffusion matrix A(x) is bounded away from zero.

(ii) If xRdU , the mean time τ at which a path issuing from x reaches the set U is finite, and supxKExτ< for every compact subset KRd .

Then, the Markov process x(t) of Eq. (4.1) has a stationary distribution μ1() with density in Rd such that limtP{x(t)B}=μ1(B) for any Borel set BRd , and

P{limT1T0Tf(x(t))dt=Rdf(x)μ1(dx)}=1,

where f(x) is a function integrable with respect to the measure μ1 .

Remark 4.1

To verify condition (i), it is sufficient to show that there is a positive number Q such that i,j=1daij(x)ζiζjQ|ζ|2 for all xU and ζRd (See [[47], [48]]). To validate condition (ii), it is sufficient to show that there is a nonnegative C2-function V(x) and a bounded domain URd with regular boundary such that for some constant k>0 one has LV(x)<k for all xRdU (See [49]).

When in model (1.2)there is not any stochastic perturbation, that is σi=0(i=1,2,3,4,5), then model (1.2)degenerates into the following deterministic model

S(t)=AβSIμ1S+γI+ξQ,I(t)=βSI(μ2+γ+δ)I,Q(t)=δI(μ3+ξ)Q. (4.2)

Let Rˆ0=βAμ1(δ+γ+μ2). We can prove that when Rˆ0>1 then model (4.2)has a unique endemic equilibrium (S,I,R), where

S=Aμ1Rˆ0,I=A(11Rˆ0)μ2+δμ3μ3+ξ,Q=δIμ3+ξ.

Define the constants

η1=(a3+1)μ1a2Iσ12(a3+1)σ52,η2=a3(μ2+δ)+μ2(a3+1)σ22(a1+a3)σ42,η3=a1(μ3+ξ)+μ3(a1+1)σ32,F=a2I2(σ22+σ42)+C1S2+C2I2+C3Q2,C1=a2Iσ12+σ52,C2=(a3+1)σ22+(a1+a3)σ42,C3=(a1+1)σ32,

where

a1=α2δ,a2=(μ1+μ2+δ)(μ1+μ3)+ξ(μ1+μ2)βξ,a3=μ1+μ3ξ.

Now, on the existence and uniqueness of stationary distribution for model (1.2)we have the following result.

Theorem 4.1

Assume that Rˆ0=βAμ1(δ+γ+μ2)>1 . If the conditions

ηi>0(i=1,2,3),F<min{η1S2,η2I2,η3Q2} (4.3)

are satisfied, then model (1.2) has a unique stationary distribution and ergodic property.

Proof

Define the Lyapunov function as follows.

V(S,I,Q)=a1V1(Q)+a2V2(I)+a3V3(S,I)+V4(S,I,Q),

where

V1=12(QQ)2,V2=,IIIlnII,V3=12(S+ISI)2,V4=12(S+I+QSIQ)2.

By computing, we have

LV1=(QQ)(δI(μ3+ξ)Q)+12σ32Q2+12σ42I2δ(II)(QQ)(μ3+ξσ32)(QQ)2+σ32(Q)2+σ42(II)2+σ42(I)2,
LV2=(1II)(βSI(μ2+δ+γ)I)+12II2(σ22I2+σ12S2I2+σ42I2)β(II)(SS)+I2(σ22+σ42)+Iσ12(SS)2+Iσ12S2
LV3=(S+ISI)(Aμ1S+ξQ(μ2+δ)I)+12σ22I2+12σ42I2+12σ52S2(μ1σ52)(SS)2(μ2+δσ22σ42)(II)2+ξ(QQ)(SS)(μ1+μ2+δ)(II)(SS)+ξ(QQ)(II)+(σ22+σ42)I2+σ52S2

and

LV4=(S+I+QSIQ)(Aμ1Sμ2Iμ3Q)+12σ22I2+12σ32Q2+12σ52S2(μ1σ52)(SS)2(μ2σ22)(II)2(μ3σ32)(QQ)2(μ1+μ2)(SS)(II)(μ1+μ3)(SS)(QQ)(μ2+μ3)(QQ)(II)+σ22I2+σ32Q2+σ52S2.

Therefore, we have

LV(S,I,Q)=a1LV1(Q)+a2LV2(I)+a3LV3(S,I)+LV4(S,I,Q),a1(μ3+ξσ32)(QQ)2+a1σ32(Q)2+a1σ42I2+a1σ4(II)2+a2I2(σ22+σ42)+a2Iσ12(SS)2+a2Iσ12S2a3(μ1σ52)(SS)2a3(μ2+γσ22σ42)(II)2+a3(σ22I2+σ42I2)+a3σ52S2(μ1σ52)(SS)2(μ2σ22)(II)2(μ3σ32)(QQ)2+σ22I2+σ32Q2+a3σ52S2=η1(SS)2η2(II)2η3(QQ)2+F.

If (4.3) holds, then the episode

η1(SS)2+η2(II)2+η3(QQ)2=F

lie in the positive zone of R+3. Hence, there exists a constant C>0 and a compact set KR+3 such that for any x=(S,I,Q)R+3K

η1(SS)2+η2(II)2+η3(QQ)2F+C.

Thus, we finally have

LV(x)C,xR+3K.

From Remark 4.1, this shows that condition (ii) in Lemma 4.1 holds.

Next, we show that condition (i) holds in Lemma 4.1. The diffusion matrix associated to model (1.2) is

A(x)=(aij(x))3×3=σ12S2I2+σ52S2σ12S2I20σ12S2I2σ12S2I2+σ22I2+σ42I2σ42I20σ42I2σ32Q2+σ42I2, (4.4)

where x=(S,I,Q). Choose M=min(S,I,Q)U{σ22I2,σ32Q2,σ52S2}. We have M>0. For any (S,I,Q)U¯ and (ζ1,ζ2,ζ3)R+3, from (4.4) we have

i,j=13aij(x)ζiζj=σ12S2I2(ζ1ζ2)2+σ22I2ζ22+σ32Q2ζ32+σ42I2(ζ2ζ3)2+σ52S2ζ12min(S,I,Q)U{σ52S2,σ22I2,σ32Q2}[ζ12+ζ22+ζ32]=M|ζ|2,

where |ζ|=(ζ12+ζ22+ζ32)12. From Remark 4.1 this shows that condition (i) in Lemma 4.1 is verified. Therefore, model (1.2) has a unique stationary distribution and the ergodic property. This completes the proof.  □

Remark 4.2

It is clear that there exists a constant σ0>0 such that when 0σiσ0(i=1,2,3,4,5) the condition (4.3)holds. This implies that as long as Rˆ0=βAμ1(δ+γ+μ2)>1 then the conclusions of Theorem 4.1hold when the stochastic perturbations in model (1.2)are small enough. However, the condition (4.3)are also very strong. We easily see that along with the increase of σi(i=1,2,3,4,5) the condition (4.3)will not satisfy. Thus, Theorem 4.1will be not applicable.

In the following, we consider a special case of model (1.2): σ1=σ4=0. Here, model (1.2)degenerates into the following form

dS=[AβISμ1S+γI+ξQ]dt+σ5SdW5(t),dI=[βIS(μ2+γ+δ)I]dt+σ2IdW2(t),dQ=[δI(μ3+ξ)Q]dt+σ3QdW3(t). (4.5)

We will give a new conclusion on the existence of unique stationary distribution for model (4.5). Define the constant

R¯0=βA(μ1+12σ52)(μ2+δ+γ+12σ22).

Theorem 4.2

Assume that R¯0>1 . Then model (4.5) has a unique stationary distribution and the ergodic property.

Proof

Let a C2-function H(S,I,Q) in the following form

H(S,I,Q)=MV1+V2lnSlnQ,

where

V1=c1lnSc2lnI,V2=1θ+1(S+I+Q)θ+1

whit θ is a constant satisfying 0<θ<2μ1σ22σ32σ52, constant M>0 will be determined later, and c1=2A2μ1+σ52, c2=2A2(μ2+γ+δ)+σ22. It is easy to see that

limkinf(S,I,Q)R+3UkH(S,I,Q)=,

where Uk=(1k,k)×(1k,k)×(1k,k) with integer k>1. At the same time, H(S,I,Q) is a continuous function. Hence, H(S,I,Q) has a minimum value H(S0,I0,Q0) in the interior of R+3. Then, we define a nonnegative C2-function V in the following form

V(S,I,Q)=H(S,I,Q)H(S0,I0,Q0)

By the Ito’s formula, for any solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) of model (1.2) we have

L(lnS)=AS+βI+μ1γISξQS+12σ52,
L(lnQ)=δIQ+μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32,
LV1=c1AS+c1βI+c1μ1c1γISc1ξQS+c112σ52c2βS+c2(μ1+γ+δ+α2)+c212σ222[(Ac1c2β)12A]+c1βIc1γISc1ξQS=2A[(R¯0)121]+c1βIc1γISc1ξQS

and

LV2=(S+I+Q)θ[Aμ1(S+I+Q)α2Iα3Q]+θ2(S+I+Q)θ1(σ22I2+σ32Q2+σ52S2)A(S+I+Q)θ(μ1θ2(σ22σ32σ52))(S+I+Q)θ+1μ(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)+C,

where μ=12(μ1θ2(σ22σ32σ52))>0 and

C=sup(S,I,Q)R+3{A(S+I+Q)θμ(S+I+Q)θ+1}<.

Therefore, the differential operator L acting on the V yields

LV2AMη+c1MβIc1MγISc1MξQSμ(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)+CAS+βI+μ1γISξQSδIQ+μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ522AMη+C+2μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ52μ(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)ASδIQ+(c1Mβ+β)I,

where η=(R¯0)121.

Now, we construct a compact subset D such that the condition (ii) in Lemma 4.1 holds. Define the bounded closed set

D={(S,I,Q):ε1S1ε1,ε2I1ε2,ε3Q1ε3},

where εi(i=1,2,3) are small enough positive constants, which will be determined later.

For convenience, we divide R+3D into six domains.

D1={(S,I,Q)R+3,0<S<ε1},D2={(S,I,Q)R+3,0<I<ε2,Sε1},
D3={(S,I,Q)R+3,0<Q<ε3,Sε1,Iε2},D4={(S,I,Q)R+3,S1ε1},
D5={(S,I,Q)R+3,I1ε2},D6={(S,I,Q)R+3,Q1ε3}.

We will prove that LV(S,I,Q)1 on R+3D, which is equivalent to show it on the above six domains.

Case 1. If (S,I,Q)D1, we can obtain

LVAS+F1Aε1+F1,

where

F1=sup(S,I,Q)R+3{C+2μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ5212μ(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)+(c1Mβ+β)I}.

We choose a constant ε1>0 small enough such that Aε1+F11, then it follows that

LV1for all(S,I,Q)D1. (4.6)

Case 2. If (S,I,Q)D2, we can obtain

LV2AMη+(c1Mβ+β)I+F22AMη+(c1Mβ+β)ε2+F2,

where

F2=sup(S,I,Q)R+3{C+2μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ52μ(Sθ+1+Qθ+1)}.

Choose constants M>0 large enough and ε2>0 small enough such that

2AMη+(c1Mβ+β)ε2+F21,

then it follows that

LV1for all(S,I,Q)D2. (4.7)

Case 3. If (S,I,Q)D3, we can obtain

LVδIQ+F1δε2ε3+F1.

Choose a constant ε3>0 small enough such that δε2ε3+F11, then it follow that

LV1for all(S,I,Q)D3. (4.8)

Case 4. If (S,I,Q)D4, we can obtain

LV12μSθ+1+F112μ(1ε1)θ+1+F1.

Choose a constant ε1>0 small enough such that 12μ(1ε1)θ+1+F11, then we have

LV1for all(S,I,Q)D4. (4.9)

Case 5. If (S,I,Q)D5, we can obtain

LV12μIθ+1+F112μ(1ε2)θ+1+F1.

Choose a constant ε2>0 small enough such that 12μ(1ε2)θ+1+F11, then we have

LV1for all(S,I,Q)D5. (4.10)

Case 6. If (S,I,Q)D6, we can obtain

LV12μQθ+1+F112μ(1ε3)θ+1+F1.

Choose a constant ε3>0 small enough such that 12μ(1ε3)θ+1+F11, then we get

LV1for all(S,I,Q)D6. (4.11)

Finally, from (4.6), (4.7), (4.8), (4.9), (4.10), (4.11) we obtain

LV1for all(S,I,Q)R+3D.

Therefore, by Remark 4.1 the condition (ii) in Lemma 4.1 is satisfied.

Next, we show that condition (i) holds in Lemma 4.1. In fact, the diffusion matrix associated to model (1.2) is

A(x)=(aij(x))3×3=σ52S2000σ22I2000σ32Q2,

where x=(S,I,Q). It is easily proved that by Remark 4.1 condition (i) in Lemma 4.1 hold. Thus, we finally obtain that model (1.2) has a unique stationary distribution and is ergodic. This completes the proof.  □

Remark 4.3

When σ1>0 or σ4>0 in model (1.2), then whether model (1.2)also is ergodic and has a unique stationary distribution still is an interesting open problem. However, the numerical example given in below Section 5shows that model (1.2)when σ1>0 or σ4>0 may have not a stationary distribution.

5. Numerical examples

In this section, we further analyze the stochastic model (1.2) by means of the numerical examples.

Example 5.1

In model (1.2)we take the parameters A=2.5, β=0.08, μ1=0.1, σ1=0.06, σ2=0.7, σ3=0.2, σ4=0.6, σ5=0.1, γ=0.16, ξ=0.1, μ2=0.2, μ3=0.2 and δ=0.1. We obtain by computing R0S=0.9783<1, β=0.08<Aμ1σ12=0.09, β22σ12(μ2+δ+γ+12(σ22+σ42))=0.0039>0. Therefore, Theorem 3.3is not applicable. However, from the numerical simulations given in Fig. 1, we can see that the infective I(t) and isolation Q(t) in model (1.2)are extinct with probability one, and the susceptible S(t) in model (1.2)is permanent in the mean with probability one.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

The numerical simulation of solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))=(3,2,3) in Example 5.1. This shows that S(t) is permanent in the mean, I(t) and Q(t) are extinct with probability one.

Example 5.2

In model (1.2), we take the parameters A=2, β=0.1, μ1=0.1, σ1=0.01, σ2=0.12, σ3=0.001, σ4=0.14, σ5=0.01, γ=0.1, ξ=0.05, μ2=0.11, μ3=0.22 and δ=0.11. We obtain R0S=6.1344>1. From the numerical simulations given in Fig. 2, we can see that the infective I(t), isolation Q(t) and susceptible S(t) in model (1.2)are not only persistent in the mean with probability one, but also permanent in the mean with probability one.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

The numerical simulation of solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))=(3,2,3) in Example 5.2. This shows that S(t), I(t) and Q(t) are permanent in the mean.

Example 5.3

In model (1.2), we take the parameters A=10,β=0.6,μ1=1,ξ=0.001,γ=0.1,μ2=1.26,μ3=1.01,δ=0.2,σ1=0.1,σ2=0.2,σ3=0.15,σ4=0.05,σ5=0.12. We obtain the threshold value R0S=3.5120>1 and the endemic equilibrium of deterministic model (4.2)is (S,I,Q)=(2.6,6.4535,1.2767). The conditions in Theorem 4.1are checked as follows: R0ˆ=3.8462>1, η1=1450>0, η2=2850.4>0, η3=2.2725>0, and F=8287.2>min{η1S2,η2I2,η3Q2}=min{9801.8,1187.1,3.7039}. Hence, the condition (4.3)does not hold. This shows that Theorem 4.1is not applicable. But, from the numerical simulations given in Fig. 3, we can see that the solution (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) of model (1.2)still has a unique stationary distribution.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

The histogram of solution model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))=(1.5,1.5,0.5) in Example 5.3. This shows that there exists a unique stationary distribution.

Example 5.4

In model (1.2), we take the parameters A=0.9, β=0.1, μ1=0.1, μ2=0.12, α3=0.11 σ1=0.01, σ2=0.12, σ3=0.001, σ3=0.14, σ4=0.001, σ5=0.7 γ=0.1, ξ=0.05, and δ=0.11. We obtain R0S=2.6932>1, R0¯=0.7736<1. This shows that Theorem 4.2is not applicable. But, from the numerical simulations given in Fig. 4, we can see that the solutions of model (1.2) (S(t),I(t),Q(t)) may not exist the stationary distribution.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

The histogram of solution model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),I(0),Q(0))=(10,10,2) in Example 5.4. This shows that there is not any stationary distribution.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we have investigated the global dynamics for a stochastic SIS epidemic model with isolation of the infection. The stochastic effects are assumed as the fluctuations in the transmission coefficient, disease-related rate and the proportional coefficient of isolated of infection. The research given in this paper shows that the extinction and persistence in the mean of the model are determined by a threshold value R0S. Concretely, we have proved that if R0S<1 then disease dies out with probability one (Theorem 3.3), if R0S>1, then the model is stochastic persistent or permanent in the means with probability one (Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2). Furthermore, we also established the sufficient conditions for the existence of a unique stationary distribution (Theorem 4.1, Theorem 4.2) by constructing the new suitable Lyapunov function. Particularly, we also see that the researches given in this paper extend the results on the global stability of the disease-free and endemic equilibria for the corresponding deterministic model given in Lemma 2.1.

We see that, in order to deal with the isolation term for the stochastic SIS epidemic model, some novel interesting research techniques are proposed. They are presented in Lemma 2.4 and the proofs of Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2, Theorem 3.3 and 4.2. In addition, we also see that there are still many problems for the considered model. These problems have been shown in Remark 3.1, Remark 3.2, Remark 3.4, Remark 3.5, Remark 4.3, which are interesting and valuable to be further investigated in the future.

Acknowledgment

This research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang (Grant Nos. 2016D03022).

References

  • 1.Herbert H., Ma Z., Liao S. Effects of quarantine in six endemic models for infectious diseases. Math. Biosci. 2002;180:141–160. doi: 10.1016/s0025-5564(02)00111-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Podder C.N., Gumel A.B., Bowman C.S., Mcleod R.G. Mathematical study of the impact of quarantine, isolation and vaccination in curtailing an epidemic. J. Biol. Syst. 2007;15:185–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Arino J., Jordan R., van den Driessche P. Quarantine in a multi-species epidemic model with spatial dynamics. Math. Biosci. 2007;206:46–60. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2005.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. Global asymptotic dynamics of a model for quarantine and isolation. Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B. 2010;14:209–231. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sun C., Yang W. Global results for an SIRS model with vaccination and isolation. Nonlinear Anal.: RWA. 2010;11:4223–4237. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. Mathematical analysis of a disease transmission model with quarantine, isolation and imperfect vaccine. Comp. Math. Appl. 2011;61:3044–3070. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. The effect of incidence function on the dynamics of a qrarantine/isolation model with time delay. Nonlinear Anal.: RWA. 2011;12:215–235. doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2010.06.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. Qualitative study of a quarantine/isolation model with multiple disease stages. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011;218:1941–1961. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2011.07.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Safi M.A., Imran M., Gumel A.B. Threshold dynamics of a non-autonomous SEIRS model with quarantine and isolation. Theory Biosci. 2012;131:19–30. doi: 10.1007/s12064-011-0148-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zheng L., Yang X., Zhang L. On global stability analysis for SEIRS model in epidemiology with nonlinear incidence rate function. Inter. J. Biomath. 2017;10:1750019. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sahu G.P., Dhar J. Dynamics of an SEOIHRS epidemic model with media coverage, quarantine and isolation in a community with pre-existing immunity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2015;421:1651–1672. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.08.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Silva C.M. A nonautonomous epidemic model with general incidence and isolation. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2014;37:1974–1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grigorieva E.V., Khailov E.N., Korobeinikov A. Optimal control for a SIR epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate. Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. 2016;11:89–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hansen E., Day T. Optimal control of epidemics with limited resources. J. Math. Biol. 2011;62:423–451. doi: 10.1007/s00285-010-0341-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sang Z., Qiu Z., Yan X., Zou Y. Assessing the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions on containing an emerging disease. Math. Biosci. Engin. 2012;9:147–164. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wu L., Feng Z. Homoclinic bifurcation in a SIQR model for childhood diseases. J. Diff. Equations. 2000;168:150–167. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nuno M., Feng Z., Martcheva M., Castillo-Chavez C. Dynamics of two-strain influenza with isolation and partial cross-immunity. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 2005;65:964–982. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Agusto F.B. Optimal isolation control strategies and cost-effectiveness analysis of a two-strain avian influenza model. Biosystems. 2013;113:155–164. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2013.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhou Y., Wu J., Wu M. Optimal isolation strategies of emerging infectious diseases with limited resources. Math. Biosci. Engin. 2013;10:1691–1701. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.1691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Adams B. Household demographic determinants of Ebola epidemic risk. J. Theor. Biol. 2016;392:99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.11.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lee J., Chowell G., Jung E. A dynamic compartmental model for the Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in the Republic of Korea: A retrospective analysis on control interventions and superspreading events. J. Theor. Biol. 2016;408:118–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Khan T., Zaman G., Chohan M.I. The transmission dynamic and optimal control of acute and chronic hepatitis B. J. Biol. Dynam. 2016;11:172–189. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2016.1256441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chong N.S., Tchuenche J.M., Smith R.J. A mathematical model of avian influenza with half-saturated incidence. Theory Biosci. 2014;133:23–38. doi: 10.1007/s12064-013-0183-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhang J., Feng G. Global stability for a tuberculosis model with isolation and incomplete treatment. Comp. Appl. Math. 2015;34:1237–1249. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Upadhyay R.K., Roy P. Deciphering dynamics of recent epidemic spread and outbreak in West Africa: The case of Ebola virus. Inter. J. Bifur. Chaos. 2016;26:1630024. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Webb G.F., Browne C.J. A model of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa incorporating age of infection. J. Biol. Dynam. 2016;10:18–30. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2015.1090632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Imran M., Hassan M., Dur-E-Ahmad M., Khan A. A comparison of a deterministic and stochastic model for Hepatitis C with an isolation stage. J. Biol. Dynam. 2013;7:276–301. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2013.859856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yan X., Zou Y. Optimal and sub-optimal quarantine and isolation control in SARS epidemics. Math. Comp. Modelling. 2008;47:235–245. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2007.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhang X., Huo H., Xiang H., Meng X. Dynamics of the deterministic and stochastic SIQS epidemic model with non-linear incidence. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014;243:546–558. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang X., Huo H., Xiang H., Shi Q., Li D. The threshold of a stochastic SIQS epidemic model. Physica A. 2017;482:362–374. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wei F., Chen F. Stochastic permanence of an SIQS epidemic model with saturated incidence and independent random perturbations. Physica A. 2016;453:99–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pan Y., Han Y., Li W. The threshold of a stochastic SIQS epidemic model. Adv. Diff. Equat. 2014;2014:320. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yu J., Liu M. Stationary distribution and ergodicity of a stochastic food chian model with levy jumps. Physica A. 2017;482:14–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhu Y., Liu M. Permanence and extinction in a stochastic service-resource mutualism model. Appl. Math. Letters. 2017;69:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Liu M., Fan M. Stability in distribution of a three-species stochastic cascade predator–prey system with time delays. IMA J. Appl. Math. 2017;82:396–423. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Liu M., Fan M. Permanence of stochastic Lotka–Volterra systems. J. Nonl. Sci. 2017;27:425–452. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Li D., Cui J., Liu M., Liu S. The evolutionary dynamics of stochastic epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate. Bull. Math. Biol. 2015;77:1705–1743. doi: 10.1007/s11538-015-0101-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Liu Q., Jiang D., Hayat T., Ahmad B. Periodic solution and stationary distribution of stochastic SIR epidemic models with higher order perturbation. Physica A. 2017;482:209–217. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rifhat R., Wang L., Teng Z. Dynamics for a class of stochastic SIS epidemic models with nonliear incidence and periodic coefficients. Physica A. 2017;481:176–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lahrouz A., Settati A., Akharif A. Effects of stochastic perturbation on the SIS epidemic system. J. Math. Biol. 2017;74:469–498. doi: 10.1007/s00285-016-1033-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Liu Q., Jiang D., Shi N. Threshold behavior in a stochastic SIQR epidemic model with standard incidence and regime switching. Appl. Math. Comput. 2018;316:310–325. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Liu Q., Jiang D. Stationary distribution and extinction of a stochastic SIR model with nonlinear perturbation. Appl. Math. Letters. 2017;73:8–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Du N.H., Nhu N.N. Permanence and extinction of certain stochastic SIR models perturbed by a complex type of noises. Appl. Math. Letters. 2017;64:223–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mao X. Stochastic Differential Equations and Applications. 2nd ed. Horwood; Chichester, UK: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hasminskii R.Z. Stochastic Stability of Differential Equations, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands. 1980. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Liu M., Wang K., Wu Q. Survival analysis of stochastic competitive models in a polluted environment and stochastic competitive exclusion principle. Bull. Math. Biol. 2011;73:1969–2012. doi: 10.1007/s11538-010-9569-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gard T. Introduction to Stochastic Differential Equations, New York. 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Strang G. Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Thomson Learning Inc; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zhu C., Yin G. Asymptotic properties of hybrid diffusion systems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 2007;46:1155–1179. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Physica a are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES