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)=A−βIS−μS+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 μ1≤min{μ2,μ3}. Next, we introduce randomness into model (1.1), by replacing the parameters β, μi(i=1,2,3) and δ with β→β+σ1W˙1(t), μ2→μ2+σ2W˙2(t), μ3→μ3+σ3W˙3(t), δ→δ+σ4W˙4(t) and μ1→μ1+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=[A−βIS−μ1S+γI+ξQ]dt−σ1SIdW1(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)〉=1t∫0tf(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(1−1R0)(μ+α)(1+δμ+ξ+α),Q∗=δI∗μ+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 t≥0 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 supt→∞〈S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)〉≤Aμ1a.s. (2.2)

Proof

By model (1.2), we have

d(S+I+Q)=[A−μ1(S+I+Q)−α2I−α3Q]dt+σ2IdW2(t)+σ3QdW3(t)+σ5SdW5(t), (2.3)

where α2=μ2−μ1≥0 and α3=μ3−μ1≥0. Solving this equation, we further obtain that

S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)=Aμ1+[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))−Aμ1]e−μ1t−α2∫0te−μ1(t−s)I(s)ds−α3∫0te−μ1(t−s)Q(s)ds+σ2∫0te−μ1(t−s)I(s)dW2(s)+σ3∫0te−μ1(t−s)Q(s)dW3(s)+σ5∫0te−μ1(t−s)S(s)dW5(s)≤Aμ1+[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))−Aμ1]e−μ1t+M(t)a.s., (2.4)

where

M(t)=σ2∫0te−μ1(t−s)I(s)dW2(s)+σ3∫0te−μ1(t−s)Q(s)dW3(s)+σ5∫0te−μ1(t−s)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(1−e−μ1t) and U(t)=(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))(1−e−μ1t). By (2.4) we have S(t)+I(t)+Q(t)≤X(t)a.s. for all t≥0. It is clear that A(t) and U(t) are continuous adapted increasing processes on t≥0 with A(0)=U(0)=0. By Theorem 3.9 in [44], we obtain that limt→∞X(t)<∞a.s. Thus, conclusion (2.1) is true.

Set

M2(t)=∫0tI(s)dW2(s),M2∗(t)=∫0te−μ1(t−s)I(s)dW2(s),M3(t)=∫0tQ(s)dW3(s),M3∗(t)=∫0te−μ1(t−s)Q(s)dW3(s),M5(t)=∫0tS(s)dW5(s),M5∗(t)=∫0te−μ1(t−s)S(s)dW5(s).

Since the quadratic variations

〈M2(t),M2(t)〉=∫0tI2(s)ds≤(supt≥0I2(t))t,〈M2∗(t),M2∗(t)〉=∫0te−2μ1(t−s)I2(s)ds≤(supt≥0I2(t))t,

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

limt→∞1tM2(t)=0,limt→∞1tM2∗(t)=0a.s. (2.5)

Similarly, we also have

limt→∞1tM3(t)=0,limt→∞1tM3∗(t)=0,limt→∞1tM5(t)=0,limt→∞1tM5∗(t)=0a.s. (2.6)

Since

〈M(t)〉=σ2t∫0t∫0se−μ1(s−u)I(u)dW2(u)ds+σ3t∫0t∫0se−μ1(s−u)Q(u)dW3(u)ds+σ5t∫0t∫0se−μ(s−u)S(u)dW5(u)ds=σ2μ1t(∫0tI(u)dW2(u)−∫0te−μ1(t−u)I(u)dW2(u))+σ3μ1t(∫0tQ(u)dW3(u)−∫0te−μ1(t−u)Q(u)dW3(u))+σ5μ1t(∫0tS(u)dW5(u)−∫0te−μ1(t−u)S(u)dW5(u)),

by (2.5), (2.6), we obtain limt→∞〈M(t)〉=0. Since

limt→∞1t∫0t[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0))−Aμ1]e−μ1sds=limt→∞1μ1t[(S(0)+I(0)+Q(0)−Aμ1)(1−e−μ1t)]=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)〉=Aμ1〈N(t)〉−α2μ1〈I(t)N(t)〉−α3μ1〈Q(t)N(t)〉+σ522μ1〈S2(t)〉+σ222μ1〈I2(t)〉+σ322μ1〈Q2(t)〉+C(t), (2.8)

where

C(t)=σ2μ11t∫0tN(s)I(s)dW2(s)+σ3μ1t∫0tN(s)Q(s)dW3(s)+σ5μ1t∫0tN(s)S(s)dW5(s)+12μ1t(N2(0)−N2(t)) (2.9)

and

K(t)=σ3ξμ1(μ3+ξ)t∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)+μ3μ1(μ3+ξ)t(Q(t)−Q(0))+σ2μ1t∫0tI(s)dW2(s)−σ4μ3μ1(μ3+ξ)t∫0tI(s)dW4(s)+σ5μ1t∫0tS(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)=2A∫0tN(s)ds−2μ1∫0tN2(s)ds−2α2∫0tI(s)N(s)ds−2α3∫0tN(s)Q(s)ds+σ22∫0tI2(s)ds+σ32∫0tQ2(s)ds+σ52∫0tS2(s)ds+2σ2∫0tN(s)I(s)dW2(s)+2σ3∫0tN(s)Q(s)dW3(s)+2σ5∫0tN(s)S(s)dW5(s). (2.12)

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

〈N2(t)〉=Aμ1〈N(t)〉−α2μ1〈I(t)N(t)〉−α3μ1〈Q(t)N(t)〉+σ522μ1〈S2(t)〉+σ222μ1〈I2(t)〉+σ322μ1〈Q2(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)=δ∫0tI(s)ds−(μ3+ξ)∫0tQ(s)ds+σ3∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ4∫0tI(s)dW4(s). (2.13)

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

〈Q(t)〉=δμ3+ξ〈I(t)〉+σ3(μ3+ξ)t∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ4(μ3+ξ)t∫0tI(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))=A−μ1〈S(t)〉−μ2〈I(t)〉−μ3〈Q(t)〉+σ21t∫0tI(s)dW2(s)+σ31t∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ51t∫0tS(s)dW5(s).

Consequently,

〈S(t)〉=Aμ1−μ2μ1〈I(t)〉−μ3μ1〈Q(t)〉+σ2μ1t∫0tI(s)dW2(s)+σ3μ1t∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ5μ1t∫0tS(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 Y∈C(R+×Ω,R+) and Z∈C(R+×Ω,R+) satisfies limt→∞Z(t)t=0a.s. If there are two constants ν0>0 and ν>0 such that

lnY(t)=ν0t−ν∫0tY(s)ds+Z(t)a.s.

for all t≥0, then

lim inft→∞1t∫0tY(s)ds=ν0νa.s.

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

3. Persistence and extinction

Define

R0S=1μ2+δ+γ(Aβμ1−12σ22−12σ42−A2σ122μ12).

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 inft→∞〈S(t)〉>0, lim inft→∞〈I(t)〉>0 and lim inft→∞〈Q(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)−12σ22−12σ42−12σ12S2]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=β〈S(t)〉−(μ2+δ+γ)−12σ22−12σ42−12σ12〈S2(t)〉+σ11t∫0tS(s)dW1(s)+1tσ2W2(t)−σ41tW4(t). (3.2)

From (2.7), we have

lnI(t)−lnI(0)t=Aβμ1−β[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]〈I(t)〉+βK(t)−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t∫0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t)−12σ12〈S2(t)〉. (3.3)

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

〈N2(t)〉≤Aμ1〈N(t)〉+σ222μ1〈I2(t)〉+σ322μ1〈Q2(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 t≥0. Thus, we further obtain from (3.4),

〈N2(t)〉≤Aμ1〈N(t)〉+Lσ222μ1〈I(t)〉+Lσ322μ1〈Q(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 t≥T.

By substituting (2.14), (3.6) into (3.5), we obtain for all t≥T

〈N2(t)〉≤Aμ1(Aμ1+ε)+Lσ222μ1〈I(t)〉+Lσ32δ2μ1(μ3+ξ)〈I(t)〉+H(t)+C(t), (3.7)

where

H(t)=Lσ322μ1σ3(μ3+ξ)t∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)+σ4(μ3+ξ)t∫0tI(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 t≥T

lnI(t)−lnI(0)t≥Aβμ1−β[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]〈I(t)〉+βK(t)−(μ1+α2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t∫0tS(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 t≥T

[β(μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ))+σ122(Lσ222μ1+Lσ32δ2μ1(μ3+ξ))]〈I(t)〉≥Aβμ1+βK(t)−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t∫0tS(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)

limt→∞C(t)=0,limt→∞K(t)=0,limt→∞H(t)=0,limt→∞1t(lnI(t)−lnI(0))=0

and

limt→∞1t∫0tSdW1(s)=0,limt→∞1tW2(t)=0,limt→∞1tW4(t)=0.

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

lim inft→∞〈I(t)〉≥1B[βAμ1−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)−12σ12(Aμ1)2]=μ2+δ+γB(R0S−1)>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=1t∫0t[A−βSI−μ1S+γI+ξQ]ds−σ1t∫0tSIdW1(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)ds≤L4t,

by the large number theorem for martingales we have limt→∞1tM1(t)=0. Therefore, by Lemma 2.3 and (3.12) we further have

lim inft→∞〈S(t)〉≥AβL+μ1>0a.s.

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

Q(t)−Q(0)t=δ〈I(t)〉−(μ3+ξ)〈Q(t)〉+σ3t∫0tQds+σ4t∫0tIdsa.s.

Hence, we further have

lim inft→∞〈Q(t)〉=δμ3+ξlim inft→∞〈I(t)〉≥δ(μ2+δ+γ)B(μ3+ξ)(R0S−1)>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 inft→∞〈I(t)〉≥μ2+δ+γB(R0S−1)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

limt→∞〈I(t)〉=[βAμ1−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)](μ3+ξ)μ1βμ2(μ3+ξ)+βδμ3≔I∗a.s.limt→∞〈Q(t)〉=δμ3+ξI∗a.s.,limt→∞〈S(t)〉=Aμ1−[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I∗a.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(A−μ1S−μ2I−μ3Q)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)−βμ2μ1〈I(t)〉−βμ3μ1〈Q(t)〉+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t)+βσ2μ1t∫0tI(s)dW2(s)+βσ3μ1t∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)+βσ5μ1t∫0tS(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))1t∫0tQ(s)dW3(s)−βμ3μ1(σ4(μ3+ξ)t∫0tI(s)dW4(s)−1(μ3+ξ)t(Q(t)−Q(0)))+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t)+βμ1σ21t∫0tI(s)dW2(s)+βμ1σ51t∫0tS(s)dW5(s).

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

limt→∞〈I(t)〉=[βAμ1−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)](μ3+ξ)μ1βμ2(μ3+ξ)+βδμ3≔I∗a.s.

Furthermore, from (2.14) we can obtain

limt→∞〈Q(t)〉=δμ3+ξI∗a.s.,

and from (2.7) we further obtain

limt→∞〈S(t)〉=Aμ1−[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)]I∗a.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,

limt→∞〈S(t)〉=Aμ1R0,limt→∞〈I(t)〉=A(1−1R0)(μ1+α)(1+δμ1+α+ξ),limt→∞〈Q(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)β≥Aμ1σ12,R0S<1.

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

lim supt→∞lnI(t)t≤β22σ12−(μ2+δ+γ+12σ22+12σ42)<0a.s.if(A)holds (3.14)

and

lim supt→∞lnI(t)t≤(μ2+δ+γ)(R0S−1)<0a.s.if(B)holds. (3.15)

Furthermore, we also have that limt→∞〈S(t)〉=Aμ1a.s. and lim supt→∞lnQ(t)t≤−ca.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, (1t∫0tS(s)ds)2≤1t∫0tS2(s)ds, from (3.2) we have

lnI(t)t≤lnI(0)t+β〈S(t)〉−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)−12σ12(〈S(t)〉)2+σ11t∫0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t). (3.16)

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

lnI(t)t≤βAμ1−(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+σ11t∫0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t)+lnI(0)t.

Therefore,

lnI(t)t≤βAμ1−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)−A2σ122μ12−[μ2μ1+δμ3μ1(μ3+ξ)](β−Aμ1σ12)〈I(t)〉+σ11t∫0tS(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 limt→∞Φ(t)=0a.s. Therefore, we finally obtain

lim supt→∞lnI(t)t≤(μ2+δ+γ)(R0S−1)<0a.s.

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

lnI(t)t≤lnI(0)t+β〈S(t)〉−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)−12σ12(〈S(t)〉)2+σ11t∫0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t)=lnI(0)t+β22σ12−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)−12σ12[〈S(t)〉−βσ12]2+σ11t∫0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t)≤lnI(0)t+β22σ12−(μ2+δ+γ)−12(σ22+σ42)+σ11t∫0tS(s)dW1(s)+σ21tW2(t)−σ41tW4(t).

Thus, we also have

lim supt→∞lnI(t)t≤β22σ12−(μ2+δ+γ+12(σ22+σ42))<0a.s.

From (3.14), (3.15), there is a constant m>0 such that for almost all ω∈Ω there exists a T0=T0(ω)>0, when t≥T0 one has I(t,ω)≤e−mt. Without loss of generality, we assume that I(t,ω)≤e−mt for all t≥0. It follows that from the third equation of model (1.2)

dQ≤[δe−mt−(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)s−σ3W3(s)δe−msds,H3(t)=e−(μ3+ξ)t+σ3W3(t)∫0te(μ3+ξ)s−σ3W3(s)σ4I(s)dW4(s).

It is clear that

limt→∞lnH1(t)t=−(μ3+ξ),limt→∞lnH2(t)t=−m.

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

μ3+ξ−η0−σ3ε0>0,m−η−2σ3ε0>0.

Since limt→∞W3(t)t=0, without loss of generality, we assume |W3(t)|≤ε0t for all t≥0. Let H3∗(t)=eηtH3(t), then we have

〈H3∗(t),H3∗(t)〉=∫0t(eη0te−(μ3+ξ)t+σ3W3(t)e(μ3+ξ)s−σ3W3(s)σ4I(s))2ds≤∫0te2η0te−2(μ3+ξ)t+2σ3ε0te2(μ3+ξ)s+2σ3ε0sσ42e−2msds=σ42∫0te−2(μ3+ξ−η0−σ3ε0)(t−s)e−2(m−η0−2σ3ε0)sds<∞.

By the large number theorem for martingales, we have limt→∞H3∗(t)t=0. For any small enough ε>0, we can obtain

limt→∞|H3(t)|e−(η0−ε)t=limt→∞teεt|H3∗(t)|t=0.

Hence, limt→∞ln|H3(t)|t=−η0+ε. It follows that limt→∞ln|H3(t)|t≤−η0. Therefore, from (3.17) we finally have

lim supt→∞lnQ(t)t≤−min{η0,m,μ3+ξ}<0a.s.

From the first equation of model (1.2) we have

S(t)−S(0)t=A−β〈SI〉−μ1〈S〉+γ〈I〉+ξ〈Q〉−σ11t∫0tSIdW1(s)+σ51t∫0tSdW5(s).

By Lemma 2.3, the large number theorem of martingales, limt→∞I(t)=0a.s. and limt→∞Q(t)=0a.s., we have limt→∞〈SI〉=0, limt→∞〈I〉=0, limt→∞〈Q〉=0, limt→∞1t(S(t)−S(0))=0, limt→∞1t∫0tSdW5(s)=0a.s. and limt→∞1t∫0tSIdW1(s)=0a.s.. Therefore, limt→∞〈S(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(Aβμ1−12(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 U⊂Rd 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 x∈Rd∖U , the mean time τ at which a path issuing from x reaches the set U is finite, and supx∈KExτ<∞ for every compact subset K⊂Rd .

Then, the Markov process x(t) of Eq. (4.1) has a stationary distribution μ1(⋅) with density in Rd such that limt→∞P{x(t)∈B}=μ1(B) for any Borel set B⊂Rd , and

P{limT→∞1T∫0Tf(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)ζiζj≥Q|ζ|2 for all x∈U and ζ∈Rd (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 U⊂Rd with regular boundary such that for some constant k>0 one has LV(x)<−k for all x∈Rd∖U (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)=A−βSI−μ1S+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(1−1Rˆ0)μ2+δμ3μ3+ξ,Q∗=δI∗μ3+ξ.

Define the constants

η1=(a3+1)μ1−a2I∗σ12−(a3+1)σ52,η2=a3(μ2+δ)+μ2−(a3+1)σ22−(a1+a3)σ42,η3=a1(μ3+ξ)+μ3−(a1+1)σ32,F=a2I∗2(σ22+σ42)+C1S∗2+C2I∗2+C3Q∗2,C1=a2I∗σ12+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{η1S∗2,η2I∗2,η3Q∗2} (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(Q−Q∗)2,V2=,I−I∗−I∗lnII∗,V3=12(S+I−S∗−I∗)2,V4=12(S+I+Q−S∗−I∗−Q∗)2.

By computing, we have

LV1=(Q−Q∗)(δI−(μ3+ξ)Q)+12σ32Q2+12σ42I2≤δ(I−I∗)(Q−Q∗)−(μ3+ξ−σ32)(Q−Q∗)2+σ32(Q∗)2+σ42(I−I∗)2+σ42(I∗)2,
LV2=(1−I∗I)(βSI−(μ2+δ+γ)I)+12I∗I2(σ22I2+σ12S2I2+σ42I2)≤β(I−I∗)(S−S∗)+I∗2(σ22+σ42)+I∗σ12(S−S∗)2+I∗σ12S∗2
LV3=(S+I−S∗−I∗)(A−μ1S+ξQ−(μ2+δ)I)+12σ22I2+12σ42I2+12σ52S2≤−(μ1−σ52)(S−S∗)2−(μ2+δ−σ22−σ42)(I−I∗)2+ξ(Q−Q∗)(S−S∗)−(μ1+μ2+δ)(I−I∗)(S−S∗)+ξ(Q−Q∗)(I−I∗)+(σ22+σ42)I∗2+σ52S∗2

and

LV4=(S+I+Q−S∗−I∗−Q∗)(A−μ1S−μ2I−μ3Q)+12σ22I2+12σ32Q2+12σ52S2≤−(μ1−σ52)(S−S∗)2−(μ2−σ22)(I−I∗)2−(μ3−σ32)(Q−Q∗)2−(μ1+μ2)(S−S∗)(I−I∗)−(μ1+μ3)(S−S∗)(Q−Q∗)−(μ2+μ3)(Q−Q∗)(I−I∗)+σ22I∗2+σ32Q∗2+σ52S∗2.

Therefore, we have

LV(S,I,Q)=a1LV1(Q)+a2LV2(I)+a3LV3(S,I)+LV4(S,I,Q),≤−a1(μ3+ξ−σ32)(Q−Q∗)2+a1σ32(Q∗)2+a1σ42I∗2+a1σ4(I−I∗)2+a2I∗2(σ22+σ42)+a2I∗σ12(S−S∗)2+a2I∗σ12S∗2−a3(μ1−σ52)(S−S∗)2−a3(μ2+γ−σ22−σ42)(I−I∗)2+a3(σ22I∗2+σ42I∗2)+a3σ52S∗2−(μ1−σ52)(S−S∗)2−(μ2−σ22)(I−I∗)2−(μ3−σ32)(Q−Q∗)2+σ22I∗2+σ32Q∗2+a3σ52S∗2=−η1(S−S∗)2−η2(I−I∗)2−η3(Q−Q∗)2+F.

If (4.3) holds, then the episode

η1(S−S∗)2+η2(I−I∗)2+η3(Q−Q∗)2=F

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

η1(S−S∗)2+η2(I−I∗)2+η3(Q−Q∗)2≥F+C.

Thus, we finally have

LV(x)≤−C,x∈R+3∖K.

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+σ52S2−σ12S2I20−σ12S2I2σ12S2I2+σ22I2+σ42I2−σ42I20−σ42I2σ32Q2+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(ζ1−ζ2)2+σ22I2ζ22+σ32Q2ζ32+σ42I2(ζ2−ζ3)2+σ52S2ζ12≥min(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 0≤σi≤σ0(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=[A−βIS−μ1S+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+V2−lnS−lnQ,

where

V1=−c1lnS−c2lnI,V2=1θ+1(S+I+Q)θ+1

whit θ is a constant satisfying 0<θ<2μ1σ22∨σ32∨σ52, constant M>0 will be determined later, and c1=2A2μ1+σ52, c2=2A2(μ2+γ+δ)+σ22. It is easy to see that

limk→∞inf(S,I,Q)∈R+3∖UkH(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+μ1−γIS−ξQS+12σ52,
L(−lnQ)=−δIQ+μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32,
LV1=−c1AS+c1βI+c1μ1−c1γIS−c1ξQS+c112σ52−c2βS+c2(μ1+γ+δ+α2)+c212σ22≤−2[(Ac1c2β)12−A]+c1βI−c1γIS−c1ξQS=−2A[(R¯0)12−1]+c1βI−c1γIS−c1ξQS

and

LV2=(S+I+Q)θ[A−μ1(S+I+Q)−α2I−α3Q]+θ2(S+I+Q)θ−1(σ22I2+σ32Q2+σ52S2)≤A(S+I+Q)θ−(μ1−θ2(σ22∨σ32∨σ52))(S+I+Q)θ+1≤−μ∗(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)+C,

where μ∗=12(μ1−θ2(σ22∨σ32∨σ52))>0 and

C=sup(S,I,Q)∈R+3{A(S+I+Q)θ−μ∗(S+I+Q)θ+1}<∞.

Therefore, the differential operator L acting on the V yields

LV≤−2AMη+c1MβI−c1MγIS−c1MξQS−μ∗(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)+C−AS+βI+μ1−γIS−ξQS−δIQ+μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ52≤−2AMη+C+2μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ52−μ∗(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)−AS−δIQ+(c1Mβ+β)I,

where η=(R¯0)12−1.

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):ε1≤S≤1ε1,ε2≤I≤1ε2,ε3≤Q≤1ε3},

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

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

D1={(S,I,Q)∈R+3,0<S<ε1},D2={(S,I,Q)∈R+3,0<I<ε2,S≥ε1},
D3={(S,I,Q)∈R+3,0<Q<ε3,S≥ε1,I≥ε2},D4={(S,I,Q)∈R+3,S≥1ε1},
D5={(S,I,Q)∈R+3,I≥1ε2},D6={(S,I,Q)∈R+3,Q≥1ε3}.

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

Case 1. If (S,I,Q)∈D1, we can obtain

LV≤−AS+F1≤−Aε1+F1,

where

F1=sup(S,I,Q)∈R+3{C+2μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ52−12μ∗(Sθ+1+Iθ+1+Qθ+1)+(c1Mβ+β)I}.

We choose a constant ε1>0 small enough such that −Aε1+F1≤−1, then it follows that

LV≤−1for all(S,I,Q)∈D1. (4.6)

Case 2. If (S,I,Q)∈D2, we can obtain

LV≤−2AMη+(c1Mβ+β)I+F2≤−2AMη+(c1Mβ+β)ε2+F2,

where

F2=sup(S,I,Q)∈R+3{C+2μ1+ξ+α3+12σ32+12σ52−μ∗(Sθ+1+Qθ+1)}.

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

−2AMη+(c1Mβ+β)ε2+F2≤−1,

then it follows that

LV≤−1for all(S,I,Q)∈D2. (4.7)

Case 3. If (S,I,Q)∈D3, we can obtain

LV≤−δIQ+F1≤−δε2ε3+F1.

Choose a constant ε3>0 small enough such that −δε2ε3+F1≤−1, then it follow that

LV≤−1for all(S,I,Q)∈D3. (4.8)

Case 4. If (S,I,Q)∈D4, we can obtain

LV≤−12μ∗Sθ+1+F1≤−12μ∗(1ε1)θ+1+F1.

Choose a constant ε1>0 small enough such that −12μ∗(1ε1)θ+1+F1≤−1, then we have

LV≤−1for all(S,I,Q)∈D4. (4.9)

Case 5. If (S,I,Q)∈D5, we can obtain

LV≤−12μ∗Iθ+1+F1≤−12μ∗(1ε2)θ+1+F1.

Choose a constant ε2>0 small enough such that −12μ∗(1ε2)θ+1+F1≤−1, then we have

LV≤−1for all(S,I,Q)∈D5. (4.10)

Case 6. If (S,I,Q)∈D6, we can obtain

LV≤−12μ∗Qθ+1+F1≤−12μ∗(1ε3)θ+1+F1.

Choose a constant ε3>0 small enough such that −12μ∗(1ε3)θ+1+F1≤−1, then we get

LV≤−1for all(S,I,Q)∈D6. (4.11)

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

LV≤−1for all(S,I,Q)∈R+3∖D.

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{η1S∗2,η2I∗2,η3Q∗2}=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