Skip to main content
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2020 Jun 18;2020(1):299. doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-02762-2

A fractional differential equation model for the COVID-19 transmission by using the Caputo–Fabrizio derivative

Dumitru Baleanu 1,2,5, Hakimeh Mohammadi 3, Shahram Rezapour 4,5,
PMCID: PMC7301114  PMID: 32572336

Abstract

We present a fractional-order model for the COVID-19 transmission with Caputo–Fabrizio derivative. Using the homotopy analysis transform method (HATM), which combines the method of homotopy analysis and Laplace transform, we solve the problem and give approximate solution in convergent series. We prove the existence of a unique solution and the stability of the iteration approach by using fixed point theory. We also present numerical results to simulate virus transmission and compare the results with those of the Caputo derivative.

Keywords: Fixed point, Homotopy analysis method, Mathematical model, Numerical simulation, Caputo–Fabrizio derivative

Introduction

Corona viruses are a large family of viruses that have a distinctive corona or ‘crown’ of sugary-proteins, and because of their appearance, they were called corona viruses in 1960. Viruses that cause common cold diseases and fatal diseases, such as Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV), are from the corona viruses family. Detailed investigations found that corona viruses are transmitted between animals and people, for instance, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were transmitted from civet cats and dromedary camels to humans, respectively. Also, several known corona viruses that have not yet infected humans are circulating in animals.

COVID-19, which was first identified in the Wuhan city, is a new strain that has not been previously identified in humans. Snakes or bats have been suspected as a potential source for the outbreak, though other experts currently consider this unlikely. Fever, cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties are the initial symptoms of this infection. In the next steps, the infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and even death.

The study of disease dynamics is a dominating theme for many biologists and mathematicians (see, for example, [110]). It has been studied by many researchers that fractional extensions of mathematical models of integer order represent the natural fact in a very systematic way such as in the approach of Akbari et al. [11], Baleanu et al. [1224], and Talaee et al. [25]. In this paper, we use the new fractional Caputo–Fabrizio derivative [26] to express the mathematical modeling for simulating the transmission of COVID-19. Recently, many works related to the fractional Caputo–Fabrizio derivative have been published (see, for example, [21, 23, 24, 2730]). The Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative is also used to study the dynamics of diseases (see, for example, [3134]). Mathematical models are used to simulate the transmission of corona virus (see, for example, [35, 36]). A mathematical model for the transmission of COVID-19 was presented by Chen et al. [37]. In this work, we investigate this model by using the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative.

Now, we recall some fundamental notions. The Caputo fractional derivative of order η for a function f via integrable differentiations is defined by DηCf(t)=1Γ(nη)0tf(n)(s)(ts)ηn+1ds, where n=[η]+1. Our second notion is a fractional derivative without singular kernel which was introduced by Caputo and Fabrizio in 2015 [26]. Let b>a, fH1(a,b), and η(0,1). The Caputo–Fabrizio derivative of order η for a function f is defined by

DηCFf(t)=M(η)(1η)atexp(η1η(ts))f(s)ds,

where t0, M(η) is a normalization function that depends on η and M(0)=M(1)=1. If fH1(a,b) and 0<η<1, this derivative can be presented for fL1(,b) as

DηCFf(t)=ηM(η)(1η)b(f(t)f(s))exp(η1η(ts))ds

(see [38]). Let n1 and η(0,1). The fractional derivatives Dη+nCF of order η+n are defined by Dη+nCFf(t):=CFDη(Dnf(t)) [28]. The Laplace transform of the Caputo–Fabrizio derivative is defined by L[CFD(η+n)f(t)](s)=sn+1L[f(t)]snf(0)sn1f(0)f(n)(0)s+η(1s), where 0<η1 and M(η)=1 [38].

The Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of order η with Re(η)>0 is defined by Iηf(t)=1Γ(η)0t(ts)η1f(s)ds [28]. The fractional integral of Caputo–Fabrizio is defined by IηCFf(t)=2(1η)(2η)M(η)f(t)+2η(2η)M(η)0tf(s)ds (0<η<1) [38]. The Sumudu transform is derived from the classical Fourier integral ([3941]). Consider the set

A={F:λ,k1,k20,|F(t)|<λexp(tkj),t(1)j×[0,)}.

The Sumudu transform of a function fA is defined by

F(u)=ST[f(t);u]=1u0exp(t/u)f(t)dt[u(k1,k2)]

for all t0, and the inverse Sumudu transform of F(u) is denoted by f(t)=ST1[F(u)] [40]. The Sumudu transform of the Caputo derivative is given by

ST[cDtηf(t);u]=uη[F(u)i=0muηi[cDηif(t)]t=0],

where (m1<ηm) [39]. Let F be a function such that its Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivation exists. The Sumudu transform of F with Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative is defined by ST(0CFDtη)(F(t))=M(η)1η+ηu[ST(F(t))F(0)] [42].

A mathematical model for the transmission of COVID-19 with Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative

Chen and colleagues have proposed a transmission network model to simulate possible transmission from the source of infection (possibly bats) to human infection [37]. They assumed that the virus was transmitted among the bats’ population, and then transmitted to an unknown host (probably wild animals). Then hosts were hunted and sent to the seafood market, which was defined as the reservoir or the virus. People exposed to the market got the risks of the infection. In the presented model, people were divided into five groups: susceptible people (S), exposed people (E), symptomatic infected people (I), asymptomatic infected people (A), and removed people (R) including recovered and dead people. COVID-19 in the reservoir was denoted as (W). This model was presented as follows:

{dSdt=ΛmSβpS(I+κA)βwSW,dEdt=βpS(I+κA)+βwSW(1δ)ωEδωEmE,dIdt=(1δ)ωE(γ+m)I,dAdt=δωpE(γ+m)A,dRdt=γI+γAmR,dWdt=μI+μAεW,

where

  • Λ=n×N, N refer to the total number of people and n is the birth rate,

  • m: the death rate of people,

  • βp: the transmission rate from I to S,

  • κ: the multiple of the transmissible of A to that of I,

  • βw: the transmission rate from W to S,

  • δ: the proportion of asymptomatic infection rate of people

  • 1ω: the incubation period of people,

  • 1ω: the latent period of people,

  • 1γ: the infectious period of symptomatic infection of people,

  • 1γ: the infectious period of asymptomatic infection of people,

  • μ: the shedding coefficients from I to W,

  • μ: the shedding coefficients from A to W,

  • 1ε: the lifetime of the virus in W.

Also, the initial conditions are S(0)=S0, E(0)=E0, I(0)=I0, A(0)=A0, W(0)=W0.

We moderate the system by substituting the time derivative by the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative in the Caputo sense [26]. With this change, the right- and left-hand sides will not have the same dimension. To solve this problem, we use an auxiliary parameter ρ, having the dimension of sec., to change the fractional operator so that the sides have the same dimension [43]. According to the explanation presented, the COVID-19 transmission fractional model for t0 and η(0,1) is given as follows:

{1ρ1ηCFDtηS(t)=ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t),1ρ1ηCFDtηE(t)=βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)1ρ1ηCFDtηE(t)=(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t),1ρ1ηCFDtηI(t)=(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t),1ρ1ηCFDtηA(t)=δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t),1ρ1ηCFDtηR(t)=γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t),1ρ1ηCFDtηW(t)=μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t), 1

where the initial conditions are S(0)=S0, E(0)=E0, I(0)=I0, A(0)=A0, W(0)=W0. In the next section we investigate the existence and uniqueness of the solution for system (1) by fixed point theorem.

Existence of a unique solution

In this section, we show that the system has a unique solution. For this purpose, employing the fractional integral operator due to Nieto and Losada [38] on the system (1), we obtain

{S(t)S(0)=(ρ1η)CFItη[ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)],E(t)E(0)=(ρ1η)CFItη[βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)E(t)E(0)=(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t)],I(t)I(0)=(ρ1η)CFItη[(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)],A(t)A(0)=(ρ1η)CFItη[δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)],R(t)R(0)=(ρ1η)CFItη[γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)],W(t)W(0)=(ρ1η)CFItη[μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)].

Using the definition of Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral [38], we obtain

S(t)S(0)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η){ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)}S(t)S(0)=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[ΛmS(y)βpS(y)(I(y)+κA(y))βwS(y)W(y)]dy,E(t)E(0)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η){βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)E(t)E(0)=(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t)}E(t)E(0)=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[βpS(y)(I(y)+κA(y))+βwS(y)W(y)E(t)E(0)=(1δ)ωE(y)δωE(y)mE(y)]dy,I(t)I(0)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η){(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)}I(t)I(0)=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[(1δ)ωE(y)(γ+m)I(y)]dy,A(t)A(0)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η){δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)}A(t)A(0)=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)]dy,R(t)R(0)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η){γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)}R(t)R(0)=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[γI(y)+γA(y)mR(y)]dy,W(t)W(0)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η){μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)}W(t)W(0)=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[μI(y)+μA(y)εW(y)]dy. 2

For convenience, we consider

{P1(t,S)=ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t),P2(t,E)=βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t),P3(t,I)=(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t),P4(t,A)=δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t),P5(t,R)=γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t),P6(t,W)=μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t).

Theorem 3.1

The kernelP1satisfies the Lipschitz condition and contraction if the following inequality holds:

0<m+βpl1+βwl21.

Proof

Consider functions S(t) and S1(t), then

P1(t,S(t))P1(t,S1(t))=m(S(t)S1(t))βpI(t)(S(t)S1(t))βwW(t)(S(t)S1(t))mS(t)S1(t)+βpI(t)S(t)S1(t)+βwW(t)S(t)S1(t)(m+βpI(t)+βwW(t))S(t)S1(t)(m+βpl1+βwl2)S(t)S1(t).

Let λ1=m+βpl1+βwl2, where l1=I(t) and l2=W(t) are bounded functions, then we have

P1(t,S(t))P1(t,S1(t))λ1S(t)S1(t).

Thus, the Lipschitz condition is fulfilled for P1. In addition, if 0<m+βpl1+βwl21, then P1 is a contraction. □

Similarly, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 satisfy the Lipschitz condition as follows:

P2(t,E(t))P2(t,E1(t))λ2E(t)E1(t),P3(t,I(t))P3(t,I1(t))λ3I(t)I1(t),P4(t,A(t))P4(t,A1(t))λ4A(t)A1(t),P5(t,R(t))P5(t,R1(t))λ5R(t)R1(t),P6(t,W(t))P6(t,W1(t))λ6W(t)W1(t).

On consideration of P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, we can write equation (2) as follows:

S(t)=S(0)+2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P1(t,S)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P1(y,S))dy,E(t)=E(0)+2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P2(t,E)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P2(y,E))dy,I(t)=I(0)+2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P3(t,I)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P3(y,I))dy,A(t)=A(0)+2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P4(t,A)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P4(y,A))dy,R(t)=R(0)+2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P5(t,R)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P5(y,R))dy,W(t)=W(0)+2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P6(t,W)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P6(y,W))dy.

Thus, consider the following recursive formula:

Sn(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P1(t,Sn1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P1(y,Sn1))dy,En(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P2(t,En1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P2(y,En1))dy,In(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P3(t,In1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P3(y,In1))dy,An(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P4(t,An1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P4(y,An1))dy,Rn(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P5(t,Rn1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P5(y,Rn1))dy,Wn(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P6(t,Wn1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P6(y,Wn1))dy,

where S0(t)=S(0), E0(t)=E(0), I0(t)=I(0), A0(t)=A(0), R0(t)=R(0), W0(t)=W(0).

Now, we consider

H1n=Sn(t)Sn1(t)H1n=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P1(t,Sn1)P1(t,Sn2)]H1n=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P1(y,Sn1)P1(y,Sn2)]dy,H2n=En(t)En1(t)H2n=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P2(t,En1)P2(t,En2)]H2n=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P2(y,En1)P2(y,En2)]dy,H3n=In(t)In1(t)H3n=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P3(t,In1)P3(t,In2)]H3n=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P3(y,In1)P3(y,In2)]dy,H4n=An(t)An1(t)H4n=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P4(t,An1)P4(t,An2)]H4n=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P4(y,An1)P4(y,An2)]dy,H5n=Rn(t)Rn1(t)H5n=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P5(t,Rn1)P5(t,Rn2)]H5n=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P5(y,Rn1)P5(y,Rn2)]dy,H6n=Wn(t)Wn1(t)H6n=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P6(t,Wn1)P6(t,Wn2)]H6n=+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P6(y,Wn1)P6(y,Wn2)]dy.

Given the above equations, one can write

Sn(t)=j=0nH1j(t),En(t)=j=0nH2j(t),In(t)=j=0nH3j(t),An(t)=j=0nH4j(t),Rn(t)=j=0nH5j(t),Wn(t)=j=0nH6j(t). 3

According to H1n’s definition and using the triangular inequality, we have

H1n(t)=Sn(t)Sn1(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P1(t,Sn1)P1(t,Sn2)]+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P1(y,Sn1)P1(y,Sn2)]dy2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P1(t,Sn1)P1(t,Sn2)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P1(y,Sn1)P1(y,Sn2)]dy.

P1 satisfies the Lipschitz condition, therefore

Sn(t)Sn1(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1Sn1Sn2+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ10tSn1Sn2dy.

Thus we get

H1n(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1H1n1(t)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ10tH1n1(y)dy. 4

It can be shown that similar results are obtained for Hin,i=2,3,4,5,6, as follows:

H2n(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ2H2n1(t)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ20tH2n1(y)dy,H3n(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ3H3n1(t)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ30tH3n1(y)dy,H4n(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ4H4n1(t)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ40tH4n1(y)dy,H5n(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ5H5n1(t)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ50tH5n1(y)dy,H6n(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ6H6n1(t)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ60tH6n1(y)dy. 5

According to the above result, we show that system (1) has a solution.

Theorem 3.2

The fractional COVID-19 model (1) has a system of solutions if there existti, i=1,2,3,4,5,6, such that

2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λi+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λiti1.

Proof

Assume that functions S(t), E(t), I(t), A(t), R(t), W(t) are bounded. We have shown that kernels Hin,i=1,2,3,4,5,6, satisfy the Lipschitz condition. By using the recursive method and the results of (4) and (5), we obtain

H1n(t)S(0)[2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1t]n,H2n(t)E(0)[2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ2+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ2t]n,H3n(t)I(0)[2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ3+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ3t]n,H4n(t)A(0)[2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ4+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ4t]n,H5n(t)R(0)[2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ5+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ5t]n,H6n(t)W(0)[2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ6+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ6t]n.

Thus, functions (3) exist and are smooth. We claim that the above functions are the solutions of system (1). To prove this claim, we assume

S(t)S(0)=H1n(t)G1n(t),E(t)E(0)=H2n(t)G2n(t),I(t)I(0)=H3n(t)G3n(t),A(t)A(0)=H4n(t)G4n(t),R(t)R(0)=H5n(t)G5n(t),W(t)W(0)=H6n(t)G6n(t).

We have

G1n(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)[P1(t,S)P1(t,Sn1)]+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t[P1(y,S)P(y,Sn1)]dy2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P1(t,S)P1(t,Sn1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0tP1(y,S)P(y,Sn1)dy2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1SSn1+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1SSn1t.

By repeating this process, we obtain

G1n(t)[2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)t]n+1λ1n+1q.

By taking limit on recent equation as n tends to infinity, we obtain G1n(t)0. By the same way, we get Gin(t)0, i=2,3,4,5,6, and this completes the proof. □

To prove the uniqueness of solution, we assume that system (1) has another solution such as S1, E1, I1, A1, R1, W1. Then

S(t)S1(t)=2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)(P1(t,S)P1(t,S1))+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0t(P1(y,S)P1(y,S1))dy2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)P1(t,S)P1(t,S1)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)0tP1(y,S)P1(y,S1)dy.

According to the Lipschitz condition of S, we get

S(t)S1(t)2(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1S(t)S1(t)+2ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1tS(t)S1(t).

Thus

S(t)S1(t)(12(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ12ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1t)0. 6

Theorem 3.3

The solution of COVID-19 fractional model (1) is unique if the following condition holds:

(12(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ12ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1t)0. 7

Proof

From condition (7) and equation (6), we conclude that

S(t)S1(t)(12(1η)ρ1η(2η)M(η)λ12ηρ1η(2η)M(η)λ1t)=0.

So S(t)S1(t)=0, then S(t)=S1(t). In the same way, we can show that

E(t)=E1(t),I(t)=I1(t),A(t)=A1(t),R(t)=R1(t),W(t)=W1(t).

The proof is complete. □

Stability analysis by fixed point theory

Using the Sumudu transform, we obtain a special solution to the COVID-19 model and then prove the stability of the iterative method using fixed point theory. At first, we apply the Sumudu transform on both sides of equations in model (1), then

{ST(1ρ1ηCFDtηS(t))=ST(ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)),ST(1ρ1ηCFDtηE(t))=ST(βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)ST(1ρ1ηCFDtηE(t))=(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t)),ST(1ρ1ηCFDtηI(t))=ST((1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)),ST(1ρ1ηCFDtηA(t))=ST(δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)),ST(1ρ1ηCFDtηR(t))=ST(γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)),ST(1ρ1ηCFDtηW(t))=ST(μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)).

We conclude from the Sumudu transform definition of the Caputo–Fabrizio derivative the following:

{M(η)1η+ηu(ST(S(t))S(0))=ρ1ηST(ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)),M(η)1η+ηu(ST(E(t))E(0))=ρ1ηST(βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)(1δ)ωE(t)M(η)1η+ηu(ST(E(t))E(0))=δωE(t)mE(t)),M(η)1η+ηu(ST(I(t))I(0))=ρ1ηST((1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)),M(η)1η+ηu(ST(A(t))A(0))=ρ1ηST(δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)),M(η)1η+ηu(ST(R(t))R(0))=ρ1ηST(γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)),M(η)1η+ηu(ST(W(t))W(0))=ρ1ηST(μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)).

If we rearrange the above inequalities, then

{ST(S(t))=S(0)+1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)],ST(E(t))=E(0)+1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)(1δ)ωE(t)ST(E(t))=δωE(t)mE(t)],ST(I(t))=I(0)+1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)],ST(A(t))=A(0)+1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)],ST(R(t))=R(0)+1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)],ST(W(t))=W(0)+1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)].

We obtain

{Sn+1(t)=Sn(0)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[ΛmSn(t)βpSn(t)(In(t)+κAn(t))Sn+1(t)=βwSn(t)Wn(t)]},En+1(t)=En(0)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[βpSn(t)(In(t)+κAn(t))+βwSn(t)Wn(t)En+1(t)=(1δ)ωEn(t)δωEn(t)mEn(t)]},In+1(t)=In(0)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(1δ)ωEn(t)(γ+m)In(t)]},An+1(t)=An(0)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[δωpEn(t)(γ+m)An(t)]},Rn+1(t)=Rn(0)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[γIn(t)+γAn(t)mRn(t)]},Wn+1(t)=Wn(0)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[μIn(t)+μAn(t)εWn(t)]}. 8

The approximate solution of system (1) is as follows:

S(t)=limnSn(t),E(t)=limnEn(t),I(t)=limnIn(t),A(t)=limnAn(t),R(t)=limnRn(t),W(t)=limnWn(t).

Stability analysis of iteration method

Consider the Banach space (G,), a self-map T on G, and the recursive method qn+1=ϕ(T,qn). Assume that ϒ(T) is the fixed point set of T which ϒ(T) and limnqn=qϒ(T). Suppose that {tn}ϒ and rn=tn+1ϕ(T,tn). If limnrn=0 implies that limntn=q, then the recursive procedure qn+1=ϕ(T,qn) is T-stable. Suppose that our sequence {tn} has an upper boundary. If Picard’s iteration qn+1=Tqn is satisfied in all these conditions, then qn+1=Tqn is T-stable.

Theorem 4.1

([44])

Let(G,)be a Banach space andTbe a self-map ofGsatisfying

TxTyBxTx+bxy

for allx,yGwhereB0and0b<1. Suppose thatTis PicardT-stable.

According to (8), the fractional model of COVID-19 (1) is connected with the subsequent iterative formula. Now consider the following theorem.

Theorem 4.2

Suppose thatTis a self-map defined as follows:

{T(Sn(t))=Sn+1(t)T(Sn(t))=Sn(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[ΛmSn(t)T(Sn(t))=βpSn(t)(In(t)+κAn(t))βwSn(t)Wn(t)]},T(En(t))=En+1(t)T(En(t))=En(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[βpSn(t)(In(t)+κAn(t))T(En(t))=+βwSn(t)Wn(t)(1δ)ωEn(t)δωEn(t)mEn(t)]},T(In(t))=In+1(t)=In(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(1δ)ωEn(t)(γ+m)In(t)]},T(An(t))=An+1(t)=An(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[δωpEn(t)(γ+m)An(t)]},T(Rn(t))=Rn+1(t)=Rn(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[γIn(t)+γAn(t)mRn(t)]},T(Wn(t))=Wn+1(t)=Wn(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[μIn(t)+μAn(t)εWn(t)]}.

This iterative recursive isT-stable inL1(a,b)if the following conditions are achieved:

{(1(m+βpM3+βpM4+βwM6)f1(η)βpM1f2(η)βpκM1f4(η)βwM1f4(η))<1,(1+βpM1f5(η)+(βpM3+βpκM4+βwM6)f6(η)+βpκM1f7(η)+βwM1f8(η)((1δ)m+δω+m)f9(η))<1,(1+(1δ)ωf10(η)(γ+m)f11(η))<1,(1+δωpf12(η)(γ+m)f13(η))<1,(1+γf14(η)+γf15(η)mf16(η))<1,(1+μf17(η)+μf18(η)εf19(η))<1.

Proof

To prove that T has a fixed point, we compute the following inequalities for (i,j)N×N:

T(Si(t))T(Sj(t))=Si(t)Sj(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(ΛmSi(t)βpSi(t)(Ii(t)+κAi(t))βwSi(t)Wi(t))(ΛmSj(t)βpSj(t)(Ij(t)+κAj(t))βwSj(t)Wj(t))]}=(Si(t)Sj(t))+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(m+βpIj(t)+βpκAj(t)+βwWj(t))(Si(t)Sj(t))βpSi(t)(Ii(t)Ij(t))βpκSi(t)(Ai(t)Aj(t))βwSi(t)(Wi(t)Wj(t))]}.

By applying norm on both sides, we obtain

T(Si(t))T(Sj(t))=(Si(t)Sj(t))+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(m+βpIj(t)+βpκAj(t)+βwWj(t))(Si(t)Sj(t))βpSi(t)(Ii(t)Ij(t))βpκSi(t)(Ai(t)Aj(t))βwSi(t)(Wi(t)Wj(t))]}Si(t)Sj(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(m+βpIj(t)+βpκAj(t)+βwWj(t))(Si(t)Sj(t))+βpSi(t)(Ii(t)Ij(t))+βpκSi(t)(Ai(t)Aj(t))+βwSi(t)(Wi(t)Wj(t))]}. 9

Since the solutions have the same roles, we can consider

Si(t)Sj(t)Ei(t)Ej(t)Ii(t)Ij(t)Ai(t)Aj(t)Rn(t)Rm(t)Rn(t)Rm(t). 10

From equations (9) and (10), we get

T(Si(t))T(Sj(t))Si(t)Sj(t)+ST1{1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[(m+βpIj(t)+βpκAj(t)+βwWj(t))(Si(t)Sj(t))+βpSi(t)(Si(t)Sj(t))+βpκSi(t)(Si(t)Sj(t))+βwSi(t)(Si(t)Sj(t))]}. 11

Si, Ei, Ii, Ai, Ri, Wi are bounded because they are convergent sequences, then for all t there exist Mi, i=1,2,3,4,5,6, such that

Si<M1,Ei<M2,Ii<M3,Ai<M4,Ri<M5,Wi<M6,(i,j)N×N. 12

From equations (11) and (12), we get

T(Si(t))T(Sj(t))[1(m+βpM3+βpM4+βwM6)f1(η)βpM1f2(η)βpκM1f4(η)βwM1f4(η)]×Si(t)Sj(t), 13

where fi are functions from ST1[1η+ηuM(η)ρ1ηST[]]. Similarly, we will obtain

{T(Ei(t)T(Ej(t))[1+βpM1f5(η)+(βpM3+βpκM4+βwM6)f6(η)+βpκM1f7(η)+βwM1f8(η)((1δ)m+δω+m)f9(η)]Ei(t)Ej(t),T(Ii(t)T(Ij(t))[1+(1δ)ωf10(η)(γ+m)f11(η)]Ii(t)Ij(t),T(Ai(t)T(Aj(t))[1+δωpf12(η)(γ+m)f13(η)]Ai(t)Aj(t),T(Ri(t)T(Rj(t))[1+γf14(η)+γf15(η)mf16(η)]Ri(t)Rj(t),T(Wi(t)T(Wj(t))[1+μf17(η)+μf18(η)εf19(η)]Wi(t)Wj(t), 14

where

{(1(m+βpM3+βpM4+βwM6)f1(η)βpM1f2(η)βpκM1f4(η)βwM1f4(η))<1,(1+βpM1f5(η)+(βpM3+βpκM4+βwM6)f6(η)+βpκM1f7(η)+βwM1f8(η)((1δ)m+δω+m)f9(η))<1,(1+(1δ)ωf10(η)(γ+m)f11(η))<1,(1+δωpf12(η)(γ+m)f13(η))<1,(1+γf14(η)+γf15(η)mf16(η))<1,(1+μf17(η)+μf18(η)εf19(η))<1.

Thus the T-self mapping has a fixed point. Also, we show that T satisfies the conditions in Theorem 4.1. Consider that (13), (14) hold, we assume

B=(0,0,0,0,0,0),b={(1(m+βpM3+βpM4+βwM6)f1(η)βpM1f2(η)βpκM1f4(η)βwM1f4(η)),(1+βpM1f5(η)+(βpM3+βpκM4+βwM6)f6(η)+βpκM1f7(η)+βwM1f8(η)((1δ)m+δω+m)f9(η)),(1+(1δ)ωf10(η)(γ+m)f11(η)),(1+δωpf12(η)(γ+m)f13(η)),(1+γf14(η)+γf15(η)mf16(η)),(1+μf17(η)+μf18(η)εf19(η)).

So, all the conditions of Theorem 4.1 are satisfied and the proof is complete. □

Numerical method

In this section, we apply the homotopy analysis transform method (HATM) to implement the fractional model (1) appropriately. Notice that HATM is a well-developed mixture of the standard Laplace transform technique [45] and the homotopy analysis method (HAM) [46]. To solve model (1) by HATM, first we apply the Laplace transform in the following way:

{L[1ρ1ηCFDtηS(t)](s)=L[ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)],L[1ρ1ηCFDtηE(t)](s)=L[βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)L[1ρ1ηCFDtηE(t)](s)=(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t)],L[1ρ1ηCFDtηI(t)](s)=L[(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)],L[1ρ1ηCFDtηA(t)](s)=L[δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)],L[1ρ1ηCFDtηR(t)](s)=L[γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)],L[1ρ1ηCFDtηW(t)](s)=L[μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)],

which results in

{sL(S)S(0)s+η(1s)=ρ1ηL[ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)],sL(E)E(0)s+η(1s)=ρ1ηL[βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)sL(E)E(0)s+η(1s)=(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t)],sL(I)I(0)s+η(1s)=ρ1ηL[(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)],sL(A)A(0)s+η(1s)=ρ1ηL[δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)],sL(R)R(0)s+η(1s)=ρ1ηL[γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)],sL(W)W(0)s+η(1s)=ρ1ηL[μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)].

Then we get

{L(S)S0ss+η(1s)sρ1ηL[ΛmS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)]=0,L(E)E0ss+η(1s)sρ1ηL[βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))+βwS(t)W(t)(1δ)ωE(t)δωE(t)mE(t)]=0,L(I)I0ss+η(1s)sρ1ηL[(1δ)ωE(t)(γ+m)I(t)]=0,L(A)A0ss+η(1s)sρ1ηL[δωpE(t)(γ+m)A(t)]=0,L(R)R0ss+η(1s)sρ1ηL[γI(t)+γA(t)mR(t)]=0,L(W)W0ss+η(1s)sρ1ηL[μI(t)+μA(t)εW(t)]=0. 15

Using the homotopy method, we define

N1(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q))=L[Λmϕ1(t;q)βpϕ1(t;q)ϕ3(t;q)+κϕ4(t;q))βwϕ1(t;q)ϕ6(t;q)],N2(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q))=L[βpϕ1(t;q)(ϕ3(t;q)+κϕ4(t;q))+βwϕ1(t;q)ϕ6(t;q)(1δ)ωϕ2(t;q)δωϕ2(t;q)mϕ2(t;q)],N3(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q))=L[(1δ)ωϕ2(t;q)(γ+m)ϕ3(t;q)],N4(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q))=L[δωpϕ2(t;q)(γ+m)ϕ4(t;q)],N5(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q))=L[γϕ3(t;q)+γϕ4(t;q)mϕ5(t;q)],N6(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q))=L[μϕ3(t;q)+μϕ4(t;q)εϕ6(t;q)].

Then the deformation equations become

(1q)L[ϕ1(t;q)S0(t)]=qhH(t)N1(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q)),(1q)L[ϕ2(t;q)E0(t)]=qhH(t)N2(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q)),(1q)L[ϕ3(t;q)I0(t)]=qhH(t)N3(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q)),(1q)L[ϕ4(t;q)A0(t)]=qhH(t)N4(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q)),(1q)L[ϕ5(t;q)R0(t)]=qhH(t)N5(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q)),(1q)L[ϕ6(t;q)W0(t)]=qhH(t)N6(ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q)),

where q[0,1] denotes an embedding parameter; ϕi(t;q), i=0,1, are unknown functions; S0, E0, I0, A0, R0, W0 are initial guesses; L[] is the Laplace operator; H(t)0 is an auxiliary function, and h0 is a nonzero auxiliary parameter. Clearly, for q=0 and q=1, we have

{ϕ1(t;0)=S0(t),ϕ1(t;1)=S(t),ϕ2(t;0)=E0(t),ϕ2(t;1)=E(t),ϕ3(t;0)=I0(t),ϕ3(t;1)=I(t),ϕ4(t;0)=A0(t),ϕ4(t;1)=A(t),ϕ5(t;0)=R0(t),ϕ5(t;1)=R(t),ϕ6(t;0)=W0(t),ϕ6(t;1)=W(t).

Thus, increasing q from zero to one varies the solution (ϕ1(t;q),ϕ2(t;q),ϕ3(t;q),ϕ4(t;q),ϕ5(t;q),ϕ6(t;q)) from (S0(t),E0(t),I0(t),A0(t),R0(t),W0(t)) to (S(t),E(t),I(t),A(t),R(t),W(t)). Now, we expand ϕi(t;q) (i=1,2,3,4,5,6) in the Taylor series with regard to q. This procedure yields

ϕ1(t;q)=S0+n=1Sn(t)qn,ϕ2(t;q)=E0+n=1En(t)qn,ϕ3(t;q)=I0+n=1In(t)qn,ϕ4(t;q)=A0+n=1An(t)qn,ϕ5(t;q)=R0+n=1Rn(t)qn,ϕ6(t;q)=W0+n=1Wn(t)qn,

where

Sn(t)=1n!nϕ1(t;q)qn|q=0,En(t)=1n!nϕ2(t;q)qn|q=0,In(t)=1n!nϕ3(t;q)qn|q=0,An(t)=1n!nϕ4(t;q)qn|q=0,Rn(t)=1n!nϕ5(t;q)qn|q=0,Wn(t)=1n!nϕ6(t;q)qn|q=0. 16

If the auxiliary function H(t), the auxiliary parameter h, and the initial guesses are properly chosen, then series (16) converges at q=1, as proved by Liao [46]. Thus, we get

S(t)=S0+n=1Sn(t),E(t)=E0+n=1En(t),I(t)=I0+n=1In(t),A(t)=A0+n=1An(t),R(t)=R0+n=1Rn(t),W(t)=W0+n=1Wn(t).

In addition, we can express the mth order deformation equation by

{L[Sn(t)χnSn1(t)]=hHT1,n(Sn1),L[En(t)χnEn1(t)]=hHT2,n(En1),L[In(t)χnIn1(t)]=hHT3,n(In1),L[An(t)χnAn1(t)]=hHT4,n(An1),L[Rn(t)χnRn1(t)]=hHT5,n(Rn1),L[Wn(t)χnWn1(t)]=hHT6,n(Wn1), 17

where

{T1,n(Sn1(t))=L[Sn1(t)]S0s(1χn)s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[ΛmSn1(t)T1,n(Sn1(t)=βpSn1(t)(In1(t)+κAn1(t))βwSn1(t)Wn1(t)],T2,n(En1(t))=L[En1(t)]E0s(1χn)T2,n(En1(t))=s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[βpSn1(t)(In1(t)+κAn1(t))T2,n(En1(t))=+βwSn1(t)Wn1(t)(1δ)ωEn1(t)δωEn1(t)mEn1(t)],T3,n(In1(t))=L[In1(t)]T3,n(In1(t))=I0s(1χn)s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[(1δ)ωEn1(t)(γ+m)In1(t)],T4,n(An1(t))=L[An1(t)]A0s(1χn)T4,n(An1(t))=s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[δωpEn1(t)(γ+m)An1(t)],T5,n(Rn1(t))=L[Rn1(t)]R0s(1χn)T5,n(Rn1(t))=s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[γIn1(t)+γAn1(t)mRn1(t)],T6,n(Wn1(t))=L[Wn1(t)]W0s(1χn)T6,n(Wn1(t))=s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[μIn1(t)+μAn1(t)εWn1(t)], 18

and

χn={0,n1,1,n>1.

Applying the inverse Laplace transform to equation (17), we obtain

Sn(t)=χnSn1(t)+hHL1[T1,n(Sn1)],En(t)=χnEn1(t)+hHL1[T2,n(En1)],In(t)=χnIn1(t)+hHL1[T3,n(In1)],An(t)=χnAn1(t)+hHL1[T4,n(An1)],Rn(t)=χnRn1(t)+hHL1[T5,n(Rn1)],Wn(t)=χnWn1(t)+hHL1[T6,n(Wn1)].

Solving these equations for different values of n=1,2,3, , we derive

{S1(t)=hHρ1η(1+α(t1))(ΛmS0(t)βpS0(t)(I0(t)+κA0(t))βwS0(t)W0(t))S1(t)=hHM1ρ1η(1+α(t1)),E1(t)=hHρ1η(1+α(t1))(βpS0(t)(I0(t)+κA0(t))+βwS0(t)W0(t)E1(t)=(1δ)ωE0(t)δωE0(t)mE0(t))=hHM2ρ1η(1+α(t1)),I1(t)=hHρ1η(1+α(t1))((1δ)ωE0(t)(γ+m)I0(t))I1(t)=hHM3ρ1η(1+α(t1)),A1(t)=hHρ1η(1+α(t1))(δωpE0(t)(γ+m)A0(t))A1(t)=hHM4ρ1η(1+α(t1)),R1(t)=hHρ1η(1+α(t1))(γI0(t)+γA0(t)mR0(t))R1(t)=hHM5ρ1η(1+α(t1)),W1(t)=hHρ1η(1+α(t1))(μI0(t)+μA0(t)εW0(t))W1(t)=hHM6ρ1η(1+α(t1)),

where

{M1=ΛmS0(t)βpS0(t)(I0(t)+κA0(t))βwS0(t)W0(t),M2=βpS0(t)(I0(t)+κA0(t))+βwS0(t)W0(t)(1δ)ωE0(t)δωE0(t)mE0(t),M3=(1δ)ωE0(t)(γ+m)I0(t),M4=δωpE0(t)(γ+m)A0(t),M5=γI0(t)+γA0(t)mR0(t),M6=μI0(t)+μA0(t)εW0(t).

Finally, the solutions of system (1) are obtained as follows:

S(t)=S0(t)+S1(t)+S2(t)+,E(t)=E0(t)+E1(t)+E2(t)+,I(t)=I0(t)+I1(t)+I2(t)+,A(t)=A0(t)+A1(t)+A2(t)+,R(t)=R0(t)+R1(t)+R2(t)+,W(t)=W0(t)+W1(t)+W2(t)+.

Convergency of HATM for FDEs

In the following, we discuss the convergence of HATM by presenting and proving the following theorem.

Theorem 5.1

Letn=0Sn(t), n=0En(t), n=0In(t), n=0An(t), n=0Rn(t), andn=0Wn(t)be uniformly convergent toS(t), E(t), I(t), A(t), R(t), andW(t), respectively, where{Sn(t),En(t),In(t),An(t),Rn(t),Wn(t)}L(R+)are produced by the mth order deformation (17). Also, assume thatn=0(CFDtαSn(t)), n=0(CFDαEn(t)), n=0(CFDαIn(t)), n=0(CFDαAn(t)), n=0(CFDαRn(t)), n=0(CFDαWn(t))are convergent. ThenS(t), E(t), I(t), A(t), R(t), W(t)are the exact solutions of system (15).

Proof

By assuming that n=0Sn(t) is uniformly convergent to S(t), we can clearly state

limnSn(t)=0,for all tR+. 19

Since Laplace is a linear operator, we have

n=1kL[Sn(t)χnSn1(t)]=n=1k[LSn(t)χnLSn1(t)]=LS1(t)+(LS2(t)LS1(t))++(LSk(t)LSk1(t))=LSk(t). 20

Thus, from (19) and (20) we derive

n=1L[Sn(t)χnSn1(t)]=limkLSk(t)=L(limkSk(t))=0.

Hence,

hHn=1T1,n(Sn1(t))=n=1L[Sn(t)χnSn1(t)]=0.

Since h0, H0, this yields n=1T1,n(Sn1(t))=0. Similarly, we can prove

n=1T2,n(En1(t))=0,n=1T3,n(In1(t))=0,n=1T4,n(Rn1(t))=0,n=1T5,n(Vn1(t))=0,n=1T6,n(Vn1(t))=0.

Now, from (18) we get

0=n=1{L[Sn1(t)]S0s(1χn)s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[ΛnSn1(t)βpSn1(t)(In1(t)+κAn1(t))βwSn1(t)Wn1(t)]}=L[n=1Sn1(t)]S0sn=1(1χn)s+α(1s)sρ1ηL[n=1(ΛnSn1(t)βpSn1(t)(In1(t)+κAn1(t))βwSn1(t)Wn1(t))]=L[S(t)]S0ss+α(1s)sρ1ηL[ΛnS(t)βpS(t)(I(t)+κA(t))βwS(t)W(t)].

Therefore S(t) is the exact solution of system (15). Similarly, we can prove that E(t), I(t), A(t), R(t), and W(t) are the exact solutions of system (15), and the proof is complete. □

Numerical results

In this section, we present a numerical simulation for the transmission model of COVID-19 (1) by using the homotopy analysis transform method (HATM). To this end, we assume that the total population is N=100, and since the birth rate for China in 2020 is about 11.46 births per 1000 people, then Λ=n×N=1.146. According to the news released by the World Health Organization, the death rate is 3.4 percent and the incubation period of COVID-19 is 14 days. Of course, the new Chinese study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, suggests that the incubation period for the virus could be as long as 24 days.

Because the information is changing and due to the lack of complete information on many parameters related to the transmission of this virus, we had to consider some of the coefficients hypothetically. In this simulation, according to the news, we have chosen the parameters as βp=0.0025, βw=0.001, κ=0.05, δ=0.25, ω=0.071, ω=0.1, γ=0.047, γ=0.1, μ=0.003, μ=0.001, ε=0.033, and the initial values are S0=35, I0=25, R0=0, E0=25, A0=10, W0=5.

In Figures 13, we show the three-term solution of homotopy analysis transform method (HATM) with the auxiliary parameter h=1 and the auxiliary function H=1 corresponding to proposed model (1) for different values of η and modification parameter ρ=0.99. Figures 1 and 2 show that the number of susceptible and exposed people increases first with a birth rate of 1.146. And then, with COVID-19 infection, the population of these two groups declines, and the population of the symptomatic and asymptomatic infected people increases. Figure 3 shows that the population of the out-group, i.e., the recovered and the dead, also increases with time. The amount of virus in the reservoir also decreases first and then increases as people enter the reservoir from the two infected groups. We put the Caputo fractional derivative in model (1) instead of the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative and solved the new model similarly and obtained the results of the two derivatives for η=0.96. Then, in Figs. 46, we compared these results for system (1). We observe that the difference between the results of these two derivatives increases with time.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Plots of the results of Caputo derivative and Caputo–Fabrizio derivative for A, I with η=0.96

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Plots of approximate solutions of susceptible parameter S and exposed parameter E for different values of η=1,0.9,0.8,0.7,0.6,0.5

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Plots of approximate solutions of removed parameter R and COVID-19 reservoir parameter W for different values of η=1,0.9,0.8,0.7,0.6,0.5

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Plots of approximate solutions of asymptomatic infected parameter A and symptomatic infected parameter I for different values of η=1,0.9,0.8,0.7,0.6,0.5

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Plots of the results of Caputo derivative and Caputo–Fabrizio derivative for S, E with η=0.96

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Plots of the results of Caputo derivative and Caputo–Fabrizio derivative for R, W with η=0.96

Conclusion

In this paper, we investigate a model of the COVID-19 transmission in different groups of people using the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative. Using the fixed point theorem, we prove a unique solution for the system. The resulting differential system is solved using the homotopy analysis transform method (HATM), and we obtain approximate solutions in convergent series. With the numerical results, we present a simulation for COVID-19, which shows the rapid transmission of the virus to different groups of people. We compared the results of the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative with those of the Caputo derivative.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements

Research of the third author was supported by Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University. Also, research of the second author was supported by Miandoab Branch of Islamic Azad University. The authors are thankful to dear referees for the valuable comments which improved the final version of this work.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Authors’ contributions

The authors declare that the study was realized in collaboration with equal responsibility. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not available.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

References

  • 1.Haq F., Shah K., Rahman G., Shahzad M. Cancer treatment model with the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative. Comput. Methods Differ. Equ. 2017;5(1):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Koca I. Analysis of rubella disease model with non-local and non-singular fractional derivatives. Int. J. Optim. Control Theor. Appl. 2018;8(1):17–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rida S.Z., Arafa A.A.M., Gaber Y.A. Solution of the fractional epidemic model by L-ADM. J. Fract. Calc. Appl. 2016;7(1):189–195. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Singh H., Dhar J., Bhatti H.S., Chandok S. An epidemic model of childhood disease dynamics with maturation delay and latent period of infection. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2016;2:79. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tchuenche J.M., Dube N., Bhunu C.P., Smith R.J., Bauch C.T. The impact of media coverage on the transmission dynamics of human influenza. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:S5. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S1-S5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Upadhyay R.K., Roy P. Spread of a disease and its effect on population dynamics in an eco-epidemiological system. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2014;19(12):4170–4184. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Khan M.A., Atangana A. Modeling the dynamics of novel coronavirus (2019-ncov) with fractional derivative. Alex. Eng. J. 2020 [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Babaei A., Jafari H., Ahmadi M. A fractional order HIV/AIDS model based on the effect of screening of unaware infectives. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2019;42(7):2334–2343. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Babaei A., Jafari H., Jalab H.A., Hadid S.B. Local fractional system for economic order quantity using entropy solution. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2019;2019:96. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Baleanu D., Mohammadi H., Rezapour S. A mathematical theoretical study of a particular system of Caputo–Fabrizio fractional differential equations for the rubella disease model. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020;2020:184. doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-02762-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Akbari Kojabad E., Rezapour S. Approximate solutions of a sum-type fractional integro-differential equation by using Chebyshev and Legendre polynomials. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2017;2017:351. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Alizadeh S., Baleanu D., Rezapour S. Analyzing transient response of the parallel RCL circuit by using the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020;2020:55. doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-02762-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Baleanu D., Agarwal R.P., Mohammadi H., Rezapour S. Some existence results for a nonlinear fractional differential equation on partially ordered Banach spaces. Bound. Value Probl. 2013;2013:112. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Baleanu D., Etemad S., Pourrazi S., Rezapour S. On the new fractional hybrid boundary value problems with three-point integral hybrid conditions. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2019;2019:473. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Baleanu D., Ghafarnezhad K., Rezapour S., Shabibi M. On the existence of solutions of a three steps crisis integro-differential equation. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2018;2018:135. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baleanu D., Ghafarnezhad K., Rezapour S. On a three steps crisis integro-differential equation. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2019;2019:153. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Baleanu D., Hedayati V., Rezapour S., Al-Qurashi M.M. On two fractional differential inclusions. SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1):882. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2564-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Baleanu D., Jajarmi A., Mohammadi H., Rezapour S. A new study on the mathematical modeling of human liver with Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2020;134:109705. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baleanu D., Mohammadi H., Rezapour S. On a nonlinear fractional differential equation on partially ordered metric spaces. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013;2013:83. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Baleanu D., Rezapour S., Mohammadi H. Some existence results on nonlinear fractional differential equations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. 2013;371:20120144. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Baleanu D., Mohammadi H., Rezapour S. The existence of solutions for a nonlinear mixed problem of singular fractional differential equations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013;2013:359. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Baleanu D., Mohammadi H., Rezapour S. Analysis of the model of HIV-1 infection of CD4+ T-cell with a new approach of fractional derivative. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020;2020:71. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Baleanu D., Mousalou A., Rezapour S. On the existence of solutions for some infinite coefficient-symmetric Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integro-differential equations. Bound. Value Probl. 2017;2017:145. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Baleanu D., Rezapour S., Saberpour Z. On fractional integro-differential inclusions via the extended fractional Caputo–Fabrizio derivation. Bound. Value Probl. 2019;2019:79. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Talaee M., Shabibi M., Gilani A., Rezapour S. On the existence of solutions for a pointwise defined multi-singular integro-differential equation with integral boundary condition. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020;2020:41. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Caputo M., Fabrizio M. A new definition of fractional derivative without singular kernel. Prog. Fract. Differ. Appl. 2015;1(2):73–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Aydogan S.M., Baleanu D., Mousalou A., Rezapour S. On approximate solutions for two higher-order Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integro-differential equations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2017;2017(1):221. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Aydogan M.S., Baleanu D., Mousalou A., Rezapour S. On high order fractional integro-differential equations including the Caputo–Fabrizio derivative. Bound. Value Probl. 2018;2018(1):90. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Baleanu D., Mousalou A., Rezapour S. A new method for investigating approximate solutions of some fractional integro-differential equations involving the Caputo–Fabrizio derivative. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2017;2017:51. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baleanu D., Mousalou A., Rezapour S. The extended fractional Caputo-Fabrizio derivative of order 0σ<1 on cr[0,1] and the existence of solutions for two higher-order series-type differential equations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2018;2018:255. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dokuyucu M.A., Celik E., Bulut H., Baskonus H.M. Cancer treatment model with the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative. Eur. Phys. J. Plus. 2018;133:92. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Khan M.A., Hammouch Z., Baleanu D. Modeling the dynamics of hepatitis e via the Caputo–Fabrizio derivative. Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. 2019;14(3):311. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ucar E., Ozdemir N., Altun E. Fractional order model of immune cells influenced by cancer cells. Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. 2019;14(3):308. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ullah S., Khan M.A., Farooq M., Hammouch Z., Baleanu D. A fractional model for the dynamics of tuberculosis infection using Caputo–Fabrizio derivative. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2020;13(3):975–993. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dighe A., Jombart T., Kerkhove M.V., Ferguson N. A mathematical model of the transmission of middle east respiratory syndrome corona virus in dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius) Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019;79(S1):1–150. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhou Y., Ma Z., Brauer F. A discrete epidemic model for SARS transmission and control in China. Math. Comput. Model. 2004;40(13):1491–1506. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2005.01.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chen T., Rui J., Wang Q., Zhao Z., Cui J.A., Yin L. A mathematical model for simulating the transmission of Wuhan novel coronavirus. Infect. Dis. Poverty. 2020;9:24. doi: 10.1186/s40249-020-00640-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Losada J., Nieto J.J. Properties of the new fractional derivative without singular kernel. Prog. Fract. Differ. Appl. 2015;1(2):87–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Belgacem F.B.M., Karaballi A.A., Kalla S.L. Analytical investigations of the Sumudu transform and applications to integral production equations. Math. Probl. Eng. 2003;3:103–118. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bodkhe D.S., Panchal S.K. On Sumudu transform of fractional derivatives and its applications to fractional differential equations. Asian J. Math. Comput. Res. 2016;11(1):69–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Shah K., Junaid N.A.M. Extraction of Laplace, Sumudu, Fourier and Mellin transform from the natural transform. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 2015;5(9):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Watugala G.K. Sumudu transform: a new integral transform to solve differential equations and control engineering problems. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 1993;24(1):35–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ullah M.Z., Alzahrani A.K., Baleanu D. An efficient numerical technique for a new fractional tuberculosis model with nonsingular derivative operator. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2019;13(1):1147–1157. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wang J., Zhou Y., Medved M. Picard and weakly Picard operators technique for nonlinear differential equations in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2012;389(1):261–274. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Khuri S.A. A Laplace decomposition algorithm applied to a class of nonlinear differential equations. J. Appl. Math. 2001;1(4):141–155. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Liao S.J. Beyond Perturbation: Introduction to Homotopy Analysis Method. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.


Articles from Advances in Difference Equations are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES