Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Epidemic "momentum" and a conservation law for infectious disease dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces epidemic momentum and shows that every renewal-equation epidemic model follows the same conserved phase-plane curve, making R0 and prior immunity separable from a single outbreak time series.

desk verdict Genuinely new conserved-quantity geometry for renewal epidemic models, but the empirical identifiability claim in the abstract is stronger than the math or the 1918 application supports—worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.01939 v3 pith:PZOT4IZL submitted 2025-11-02 q-bio.PE

David J. D. Earn , Todd L. Parsons This is my paper
classification q-bio.PE MSC 92D3037N25
keywords epidemicmomentumrenewalequationconservedquantityfirstintegralbasicreproductionnumberpriorimmunityfinalsize1918influenza
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish that all generic epidemic models—anything expressible as a renewal equation—share a single underlying geometry, once prevalence is replaced by a quantity the authors call epidemic momentum. Momentum weights each infected person by their expected future infectiousness, and the paper proves that every outbreak trajectory moves along contours of a conserved quantity whose value is simply the peak momentum. Because the conserved quantity is universal, the basic reproduction number R0 and the pre-epidemic immunity level, previously only identifiable as a product, can each be recovered from the same incidence time series. That would matter because public-health estimates of R0 for historical and emerging outbreaks have typically assumed no prior immunity, which can bias them; the paper's reappraisal of the 1918 Philadelphia wave finds R0 may have been substantially underestimated.

What carries the argument

Epidemic momentum Y(τ), the prevalence weighted by each infected individual's remaining expected infectious output; the phase-plane equation dY/dX = −1 + (1/R0)/X; the first integral C(x,y) = y + (1/R0)V(R0 x) = ŷ, with V(u) = u − 1 − ln u the Volterra function; and the Laplace transform relation 1/(R0 x±) = L[g](λ±). These together yield explicit formulas for R0, z−, and final size from the peak momentum and growth rate.

What would settle it

Measure both the rising and falling exponential growth/decay rates in a well-characterized outbreak where true incidence (or reporting fraction) and the generation interval are known independently; if the rising tail exponent does not determine the falling tail exponent through V(1/L−) = V(1/L+), or if Eq (7a) fails to match an independently estimated R0, the conservation law is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Epidemic momentum Y(τ), defined as the integral of past incidence weighted by remaining reproductive output, satisfies dY/dX = −1 + (1/R0)/X exactly for any renewal-equation model. Hence every outbreak traces the same family of curves Y(x) = y_i + (x_i − x) − x̂ ln(x_i/x), and the quantity C(x,y) = y + x̂ V(x/x̂) with V(u) = u − 1 − ln u is conserved along trajectories, its value being the peak momentum ŷ. Exploiting the asymptotic tails, R0 = (1/ŷ) V(1/L−) and prior immunity z− = 1 − 1/(R0 L−), where L− is the Laplace transform of the generation-interval distribution at the initial exponential growth rate. The same identity links the rising and falling tail exponents, and the correct final

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed incidence time series is proportional to true incidence with a known proportionality constant (or that the reporting or case-fatality fraction is known), and that the generation interval distribution g is known; otherwise R0 and z− are not separately identifiable, as the paper's own 1918 example demonstrates when the case fatality proportion is varied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • R0 can be computed directly from the peak momentum and the initial growth rate, with no prior estimate of population immunity, via Eq (7a).
  • Prior population immunity z− is then inferred from the same time series via Eq (7b), breaking the product R0 x− that the standard Wallinga–Lipsitch formula can only estimate.
  • The classical final size formula, which assumes a fully susceptible population, is a special case; the correct final size is z+ = x− − x+ = (1/R0)(1/L− − 1/L+).
  • Any renewal-equation model's trajectory maps onto SIR trajectories through a time reparameterization, so generic epidemics are Hamiltonian up to a change of time.
  • The rising and falling exponential tails are linked: given the generation interval and λ−, the decay exponent λ+ is determined, eliminating an independent fit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The formulas require the observed series to be proportional to true incidence with known proportionality; the paper's own 1918 analysis shows that varying the case fatality proportion from 1% to 3% swings R0 from about 4.4 to 13 and prior immunity from 17% to 72% — so the pair (R0, z−) is identifiable only once the reporting scale is fixed, as a cited preprint proves for the SIR model.
  • The universal phase-plane curve suggests that a partial incidence curve—observed before the epidemic peak—already constrains the conserved quantity, so in principle R0 and prior immunity could be estimated earlier than the peak in reported cases, as long as dead-time-corrected incidence is available.
  • The same conserved-quantity approach could be applied to other population dynamics where a 'susceptible' pool is depleted and a weighted state variable obeys similar renewal structure; the paper hints at population momentum but does not develop it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'epidemic momentum' Y(τ), defined as a future-infectiousness weighted integral of past incidence (Eq. 2b), and shows that for any renewal-equation epidemic model the pair (X,Y) satisfies the universal phase-plane equation dY/dX = −1 + (1/R0)/X (Eq. 3a). This yields a first integral C(x,y) = y + (1/R0)V(R0x) = ŷ (Eq. 5), a conserved quantity whose value is simply the peak epidemic momentum. From this conserved quantity and the asymptotic tail exponents λ±, the authors derive exact expressions for R0, prior immunity z−, and final size z+ (Eqs. 7a–7c). They validate the approach on stochastic SEIR simulations with known parameters and apply it to 1918 Philadelphia P&I mortality after deconvolution, obtaining CFP-dependent estimates of R0 and z− that challenge earlier estimates. The mathematical core is presented as model-independent, unifying generic renewal-equation models with the classical SIR phase portrait.

Significance. If taken at face value, the conservation law is a substantive and elegant result: it gives a model-independent invariant for a very broad class of epidemic models, provides exact relations between observable incidence, peak momentum, and R0, and revises the classical final-size formula to account for prior immunity. The derivations of Eqs. (3b), (5), (6), and (7) are internally consistent, and the stochastic SEIR validation is a genuine external benchmark rather than a circular check. These are real strengths. However, the empirical claim that R0 and prior immunity can be 'infer[red] each separately from the same time series' (abstract) is only valid when the absolute scale of incidence is known; the paper's own 1918 analysis demonstrates that this scale is not identifiable from mortality data alone, with the CFP range moving R0 from ≈4.4 to ≈13 and z− from ≈17% to ≈72%. The mathematical contribution is therefore sound and publishable, but the inference claims as stated need substantial qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Results, '1918 influenza pandemic reappraisal'; Eqs. (7a)–(7b)] The headline inference claim is not scale-invariant. If observed incidence is ρ times true incidence, then ŷ_obs = ρ ŷ_true, and substituting into Eqs. (7a)–(7b) gives R0_est = R0_true/ρ and z−_est = 1 − ρ(1 − z−_true). Thus a single time series cannot identify R0 and z− unless ρ (the reporting/case-fatality proportion) is known independently. The paper's own Philadelphia analysis quantifies this: varying CFP from 1% to 3% changes R0 from ≈4.4 to ≈13 and z− from ≈17% to ≈72%. This is not a flaw in the conservation law, but it directly contradicts the abstract's unqualified statement that R0 and prior immunity can be inferred separately from the same time series. The abstract and Discussion should state the absolute-scale requirement explicitly and rephrase the contribution as conditional on a known or externally supplied reporting scale.
  2. [Results, 'Estimates of prior immunity and R0 from stochastic simulations'; Fig. 3] The stochastic validation uses simulated incidence on the absolute scale, with no underreporting or unknown scale factor. That makes Fig. 3 a valid check of the deterministic identities against stochastic dynamics, but it does not test the identifiability bottleneck identified above. As a result, the simulations do not support the sentence in the Discussion that the method 'is possible to disentangle R0 from x− and estimate them both' in a real-data setting where the incidence scale is unknown. This should be made explicit when reporting the simulation results.
  3. [Results, '1918 influenza pandemic reappraisal'; Discussion, '1918 influenza...'] The historical reappraisal is presented as a 'novel reappraisal' and 'suggests that R0 may previously have been substantially underestimated,' but the point estimates are not accompanied by confidence intervals or a full sensitivity analysis. The CFP sensitivity is reported, but λ−, the generation interval g(α), and the deconvolution of mortality to incidence are all treated as fixed. Since Eqs. (7a)–(7b) are nonlinear in these inputs, and since the comparison to Mills et al. hinges on point values, the empirical claim is statistically under-supported. The Discussion mentions the future development of confidence intervals, but the strength of the current claim should be scaled back accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2c); Methods, 'Integral representations with cumulative incidence'] Notation conflict: ι(τ) is used for the incidence rate in Eqs. (T9c), (2b), and elsewhere, but in Eq. (2c) and in Methods Eq. (M25) the same symbol ι(τ) is used for cumulative incidence. Use distinct notation for cumulative incidence throughout.
  2. [Table 1, row T10c] The heading 'F or generalg(α)' should read 'For general g(α)'.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption reports three peaks: observed P&I deaths peaked on 11 October, reconstructed incidence on 28 September, and momentum on 30 September. It would help to state explicitly that deconvolution shifts the estimated incidence backwards in time relative to deaths, which is why the peaks are ordered as they are.
  4. [Introduction, paragraph 2] In 'the probability density, g(α), of the infection age' the comma after 'density' is misplaced; it should read 'the probability density g(α) of the infection age'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central identities are derived within the paper, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Epidemic momentum Y is defined by Eq. (1b), and for the renewal equation it is shown in Methods to equal a weighted convolution of incidence with the generation-interval survivor function, Eq. (2b)/(M14), with no dependence on R0. Dividing the defining equations gives the phase-plane ODE (3a), whose solution is the first integral (5); the conserved value is the observable peak momentum yhat. Equation (7a) follows by combining the boundary values of this first integral with the Laplace-transform relation (6) derived from the renewal equation, so R0 is not inserted as an input but solved for. The stochastic simulation test is an external benchmark with known true R0 and x-, not a refit of the predicted quantities. Self-citations such as [44] and [11] are used for prior derivations or extensions, but the central theorem is proved in this paper; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to force the result. The 1918 case-fatality sensitivity is explicitly acknowledged by the authors and reflects a statistical identifiability/scale limitation, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The mathematical derivation is self-contained with no fitted free parameters in the conservation law itself. The estimation method relies on external model assumptions: the renewal equation, homogeneous mixing, known generation interval and reporting scale, and constant R0. The 1918 application introduces CFP as a scale parameter that is not identified from the time series alone.

free parameters (2)
  • case fatality proportion (CFP) = 1%–3% (range from Frost 1920); scenarios at 0.8%, 1%, 2%, 3%
    In the 1918 application, R0 and z− scale inversely with CFP; the paper does not fit CFP but scans it, demonstrating the estimates are not identified from the time series alone.
  • generation interval distribution g(α) = parameters from refs [55,56] (gamma fits)
    Assumed known for the method; replaces the need for R0 in computing momentum, but misspecification would bias L± and ŷ. It is an external input, not a fitted constant of the paper's model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Disease transmission follows the renewal equation (T9) with a fixed, known intrinsic generation interval distribution g(α) and constant R0.
    This is the framework in which the momentum and first integral are derived; the paper shows in Methods that with time-varying R0 no analogous first integral exists, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption During an outbreak the susceptible fraction X(τ) is strictly decreasing, allowing the phase-plane parametrization y=dY/dX and the inversion X=Y^{-1}.
    Used throughout Eq (3) and in Eq (M27)-(M29); fails if births/immigration replenish susceptibles significantly during the epidemic.
  • domain assumption The force of infection F(τ) tends to 0 as τ→±∞, so Y(τ)→0 and the endpoints x± are the roots of the phase-plane curve at y=0.
    Required for Eq (M34) and for evaluating the first integral at the endpoints to derive Eq (7). For an ongoing epidemic that has not fully waned this would not hold.
  • ad hoc to paper Observed incidence (or mortality deconvolved to incidence) is proportional to true incidence with a known proportionality constant (or the reporting/CFP fraction).
    Needed to estimate the peak momentum ŷ; the paper's own 1918 analysis shows that when CFP is unknown, R0 and z− are not separately identified.
  • standard math Undetermined constants in the asymptotic solution of the Lotka integral equation (M53) do not affect the relationships used; standard Laplace-transform theory applies.
    Used in Methods, Existence of r±.
invented entities (1)
  • epidemic momentum Y(τ) independent evidence
    purpose: A prevalence-weighted quantity that satisfies a universal phase-plane equation across renewal-equation models and serves as the conserved first-integral coordinate.
    It is not directly observable but is computable from incidence and the generation interval distribution (Eq 2b), and its peak ŷ enters the estimator (7a). It is a mathematical device, not a hidden physical entity, and yields falsifiable estimates testable on simulated data (Figures 2-3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Epidemic "momentum" and a conservation law for infectious disease dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZOT4IZL

@misc{pith2026251101939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Epidemic "momentum" and a conservation law for infectious disease dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZOT4IZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.01939}
}
read the original abstract

Infectious disease outbreaks have precipitated a profusion of mathematical models. Epidemic curves predicted by these models are typically qualitatively similar, despite distinct model assumptions, but there is no theoretical explanation for this similarity in terms of any recognised common structure. We introduce a unifying concept of "epidemic momentum"---prevalence weighted by potential to infect---which is more informative than prevalence, yet analytically tractable. Epidemic momentum reveals a common underlying geometry in which outbreak trajectories always follow contours of a conserved quantity. This previously unrecognised conservation law constrains how epidemics can unfold, enabling us to disentangle transmissibility from prior immunity and to infer each separately from the same time series. Epidemic momentum also exposes the true final size of an outbreak and a universal phase-plane description that links generic renewal models to the classical SIR system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01939 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Universality of the susceptible-momentum (x-y) phase plane. (A,B) Time series solution of the SIR and SEIR models for R0 = 4 with (xi , yi) = (0.999, 0.00075). For the SEIR model, the initial exposed proportion is ei = yi/2, and the mean latent period is the same as the mean infectious period (i.e., ℓ = 1). (C) Phase portraits in the susceptible-momentum phase plane, which are identical for both models. Trajectories… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Estimates of initial growth rate λ − and peak epidemic momentum yˆ from stochastic SEIR simulations. The top panels show the relative error in the initial growth rate λ − as a function of the true R0 specified in the simulations (with population size N = 105 on the left and N = 106 on the right). The exact value of λ − is given by Equation (T8d). Simulations were carried out with equal mean latent and infectious per… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prior population immunity (z − = 1 − x −) and basic reproduction number (R0) estimated from stochastic SEIR simulations. Exploiting the epidemic momentum, we successfully disentangle and accurately estimate both z − and R0. The top panels show the predicted pre-epidemic susceptible proportion x −, so the pre-existing level of population immu￾nity is z − = 1 − x − [estimated via Equation (7b)]. The true x − associate… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 1918 influenza pandemic in Philadelphia, USA. Daily deaths from pneumonia and influenza (P&I) were recorded from 1 September to 31 December 1918 [52]. We decon￾volved the observed mortality time series to obtain estimated daily incidence ι(t), using an empirically esti…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Jointly estimating transmissibility and prior immunity from epidemic time series

    q-bio.PE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A conservation law for epidemic momentum lets a single, well-scaled incidence curve separate the basic reproduction number R0 from the pre-epidemic susceptible fraction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W. O. Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, A contribution to the mathematical theory of epi- demics,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A115, 700 (1927)

    1927

  2. [2]

    W. O. Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, Contributions to the mathematical theory of epi- demics: The problem of endemicity,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A138, 55 (1932)

    1932

  3. [3]

    W. O. Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, Contributions to the mathematical theory of epi- demics: Further studies of the problem of endemicity,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A141, 94 (1933)

    1933

  4. [4]

    Breda, O

    D. Breda, O. Diekmann, W. F. De Graaf, A. Pugliese, R. Vermiglio, On the formula- tion of epidemic models (an appraisal of Kermack and McKendrick),Journal of biological dynamics6, 103 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Champredon, J

    D. Champredon, J. Dushoff, D. J. D. Earn, Equivalence of the Erlang SEIR epidemic model and the renewal equation,SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics78, 3258 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Svensson, A note on generation times in epidemic models,Mathematical Biosciences 208, 300 (2007)

    A. Svensson, A note on generation times in epidemic models,Mathematical Biosciences 208, 300 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Champredon, J

    D. Champredon, J. Dushoff, Intrinsic and realized generation intervals in infectious-disease transmission,Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences282, 20152026 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    E. M. Purcell, D. J. Morin,Electricity and Magnetism, vol. 2 ofBerkeley Physics Course (Cambridge University Press, 2013), third edn

    2013

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands,The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II: Mainly Electromagnetism and Matter(Basic Books, 2011), new millennium edition edn. 29

    2011

  2. [10]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz,Mechanics, vol. 1 ofCourse of Theoretical Physics (Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford, 2003), third edn

    2003

  3. [11]

    T. L. Parsons, B. M. Bolker, J. Dushoff, D. J. D. Earn, The probability of epidemic burnout in the stochastic SIR model with vital dynamics,PNAS – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.121, e2313708120 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Diekmann, J

    O. Diekmann, J. A. P. Heesterbeek, J. A. J. Metz, On the definition and the computa- tion of the basic reproduction ratio ro in models for infectious-diseases in heterogeneous populations,Journal of Mathematical Biology28, 18 (1990)

    1990

  5. [13]

    J. Ma, D. J. D. Earn, Generality of the final size formula for an epidemic of a newly invading infectious disease,Bulletin of Mathematical Biology68, 679 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    J. C. Miller, A note on the derivation of epidemic final sizes,Bull. Math. Biol.74, 2125 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    S. H. Strogatz,Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering(CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    D. J. D. Earn, C. C. McCluskey, Global stability of epidemic models with uniform suscepti- bility,PNAS – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.p. accepted (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Wallinga, M

    J. Wallinga, M. Lipsitch, How generation intervals shape the relationship between growth rates and reproductive numbers,Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274, 599 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    J. Ma, J. Dushoff, B. M. Bolker, D. J. D. Earn, Estimating initial epidemic growth rates, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology76, 245 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Ma, Estimating epidemic exponential growth rate and basic reproduction number,In- fectious Disease Modelling5, 129 (2020)

    J. Ma, Estimating epidemic exponential growth rate and basic reproduction number,In- fectious Disease Modelling5, 129 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    J. M. McCaw, J. McVernon, E. S. McBryde, J. D. Mathews, Influenza: accounting for prior immunity,Science325, 1071 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    C. E. Mills, J. M. Robins, M. Lipsitch, Transmissibility of 1918 pandemic influenza,Nature 432, 904 (2004)

    1918

  14. [22]

    Stone, R

    L. Stone, R. Olinky, A. Huppert, Seasonal dynamics of recurrent epidemics,Nature446, 533 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    E. Goldstein,et al., Reconstructing influenza incidence by deconvolution of daily mortality time series,PNAS – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.106, 21825 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    D. J. D. Earn, J. Ma, H. Poinar, J. Dushoff, B. M. Bolker, Acceleration of plague outbreaks in the second pandemic,PNAS – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.117, 27703 (2020). 30

    2020

  17. [25]

    Jagan, B

    M. Jagan, B. Bolker,epigrowthfit: Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models of Epidemic Growth (2024). R package version 0.15.3

    2024

  18. [26]

    W. H. Frost, Statistics of influenza morbidity with special reference to certain factors in case incidence and case fatality,Public Health Rep.35, 584 (1920)

    1920

  19. [27]

    D. J. D. Earn, T. L. Parsons, Epidemic momentum with nonlinear incidence. In prepara- tion

  20. [28]

    E. B. Wilson, J. Worcester, The law of mass action in epidemiology,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences31, 24 (1945)

    1945

  21. [29]

    E. B. Wilson, J. Worcester, The law of mass action in epidemiology ii,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences31, 109 (1945)

    1945

  22. [30]

    W. M. Liu, S. A. Levin, Y. Iwasa, Influence of nonlinear incidence rates upon the behavior of SIRS epidemiological models,Journal of Mathematical Biology23, 187 (1986)

    1986

  23. [31]

    W. M. Liu, H. W. Hethcote, S. A. Levin, Dynamical behavior of epidemiological models with nonlinear incidence rates,Journal of Mathematical Biology25, 359 (1987)

    1987

  24. [32]

    Finkenstädt, B

    B. Finkenstädt, B. Grenfell, Time series modelling of childhood diseases: A dynamical systems approach,Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) 49, 187 (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    Korobeinikov, Lyapunov functions and global stability for sir and sirs epidemiological models with non-linear transmission,Bulletin of Mathematical biology68, 615 (2006)

    A. Korobeinikov, Lyapunov functions and global stability for sir and sirs epidemiological models with non-linear transmission,Bulletin of Mathematical biology68, 615 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Korobeinikov, Global properties of infectious disease models with nonlinear incidence, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology69, 1871 (2007)

    A. Korobeinikov, Global properties of infectious disease models with nonlinear incidence, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology69, 1871 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    A. D. Becker,tsiR: An Implementation of the TSIR Model(2017). R package version 0.3.0

    2017

  28. [36]

    A. S. Novozhilov, On the spread of epidemics in a closed heterogeneous population,Math- ematical biosciences215, 177 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    D. J. D. Earn, T. L. Parsons, Globally accurate solutions of generic epidemic models via the epidemic momentum. In preparation

  30. [38]

    Cauchemez, A

    S. Cauchemez, A. J. Valleron, P. Y. Boelle, A. Flahault, N. M. Ferguson, Estimating the impact of school closure on influenza transmission from sentinel data,Nature452, 750 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    D. J. D. Earn,et al., Effects of school closure on incidence of pandemic influenza in Alberta, Canada,Annals of Internal Medicine156, 173 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    M. C. J. Bootsma, N. M. Ferguson, The effect of public health measures on the 1918 influenza pandemic in U.S. cities,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States104, 7588 (2007). 31

    1918

  33. [41]

    D. He, J. Dushoff, T. Day, J. Ma, D. J. D. Earn, Inferring the causes of the three waves of the 1918 influenza pandemic in England and Wales,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B280, 20131345 (2013)

    1918

  34. [42]

    R. E. O’Malley, Jr.,Singular Perturbation Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, vol. 89 (Springer, 1991)

    1991

  35. [43]

    Kevorkian, J

    J. Kevorkian, J. D. Cole,Multiple Scale and Singular Perturbation Methods(Springer- Verlag New York Inc., New York, 1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

    T. L. Parsons, D. J. D. Earn, Uniform asymptotic approximations for the phase plane trajectories of the SIR model with vital dynamics,SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 84, 1580 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Sellke, On the asymptotic distribution of the size of a stochastic epidemic,J

    T. Sellke, On the asymptotic distribution of the size of a stochastic epidemic,J. Appl. Probab.20, 390 (1983)

    1983

  38. [46]

    Andersson, T

    H. Andersson, T. Britton,Stochastic Epidemic Models and their Statistical Analysis, vol. 151 ofLecture notes in statistics(Springer, New York, 2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Brauer, C

    F. Brauer, C. Castillo-Chavez,Mathematical Models in Population Biology and Epidemi- ology, vol. 40 ofTexts in Applied Mathematics(Springer, New York, 2012), second edn

    2012

  40. [48]

    Eftimie, J

    R. Eftimie, J. L. Bramson, D. J. D. Earn, Interactions between the immune system and cancer: a brief review of non-spatial mathematical models,Bulletin of Mathematical Biol- ogy73, 2 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    C. M. Simon, The SIR dynamic model of infectious disease transmission and its analogy with chemical kinetics,PeerJ Physical Chemistry2, e14 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    F. M. Bass, A new product growth model for consumer durables,Management Science15, 215 (1969)

    1969

  43. [51]

    R. M. Anderson, R. M. May,Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 1991)

    1991

  44. [52]

    S. L. Rogers,Special Tables of Mortality from Influenza and Pneumonia, in Indiana, Kansas, and Philadelphia, PA(U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1920)

    1920

  45. [53]

    Jagan, M

    M. Jagan, M. S. deJonge, O. Krylova, D. J. D. Earn, Fast estimation of time-varying infectious disease transmission rates,PLoS Computational Biology16, e1008124 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Jagan,fastbeta: Fast Approximation of Time-Varying Infectious Disease Transmission Rates(2025)

    M. Jagan,fastbeta: Fast Approximation of Time-Varying Infectious Disease Transmission Rates(2025). R package version 0.5.0

    2025

  47. [55]

    M. R. Moser,et al., An outbreak of influenza aboard a commercial airliner,American Journal of Epidemiology110, 1 (1979)

    1979

  48. [56]

    R. W. Keeton, A. B. Cushman, The influenza epidemic in chicago: The disease as a type of toxemic shock,JAMA71, 1962 (1918). 32

    1962

  49. [57]

    R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey, D. E. Knuth, On the Lambert W function,Advances in Computational Mathematics5, 329 (1996). [58]NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, http://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.0.27 of 2020-06-15. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. ...

    1996

  50. [59]

    Rudin,Principles of Mathematical Analysis(McGraw-Hill, 1976), third edn

    W. Rudin,Principles of Mathematical Analysis(McGraw-Hill, 1976), third edn

    1976

  51. [60]

    Kot,Elements of mathematical ecology(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    M. Kot,Elements of mathematical ecology(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  52. [61]

    Dushoff, S

    J. Dushoff, S. W. Park, Speed and strength of an epidemic intervention,Proceedings of the Royal Society B288, 20201556 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    Ferretti,et al., Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing,Science368, eabb6936 (2020)

    L. Ferretti,et al., Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing,Science368, eabb6936 (2020)

    2020

  54. [63]

    Fraser, Estimating individual and household reproduction numbers in an emerging epidemic,PloS one2, e758 (2007)

    C. Fraser, Estimating individual and household reproduction numbers in an emerging epidemic,PloS one2, e758 (2007)

    2007

  55. [64]

    V. I. Arnol’d,Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, vol. 60 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  56. [65]

    Keyfitz, H

    N. Keyfitz, H. Caswell,Applied mathematical demography, vol. 47 ofStatistics for Biology and Health(Springer, 2005)

    2005

  57. [66]

    Barreira, Y

    L. Barreira, Y. B. Pesin,Lyapunov exponents and smooth ergodic theory, vol. 23 (American Mathematical Soc., 2002)

    2002

  58. [67]

    Caley, D

    P. Caley, D. J. Philp, K. McCracken, Quantifying social distancing arising from pandemic influenza,J. R. Soc. Interface5, 631 (2008)

    2008

  59. [68]

    Wallinga, P

    J. Wallinga, P. Teunis, Different epidemic curves for severe acute respiratory syndrome reveal similar impacts of control measures,American Journal of Epidemiology160, 509 (2004)

    2004

  60. [69]

    R. C. Cope, J. V. Ross, M. Chilver, N. P. Stocks, L. Mitchell, Characterising seasonal influenza epidemiology using primary care surveillance data,PLoS Comput. Biol.14, e1006377 (2018)

    2018

  61. [70]

    effective prior immunity

    F. Bergström, M. Favero, T. Britton, Identifiability in epidemic models with prior immu- nity and under-reporting,arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07825(2025). Endnotes [E1] TherenewalequationwasderivedbyKM[1]assumingthedependenceoftherecoveryrate on age-of-infection is known; from t...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.