Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?

Baltazar Espinoza; Carlos Castillo-Chavez; Charles Perrings

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that unrestricted mobility from a high-risk to a low-risk community can reduce overall epidemic size, while a cordon sanitaire can increase it.

desk verdict A clearly argued extension of prior work showing when mobility controls backfire, but the headline claim rests on an unflagged assumption that infected people stay as mobile as healthy ones, and the SI is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05261 v1 pith:BQJSFSR3 submitted 2019-08-14 q-bio.PE

Baltazar Espinoza , Carlos Castillo-Chavez , Charles Perrings This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.PE MSC 92D30

keywords mobilityrestrictionscordonsanitairebasicreproductionnumberfinalepidemicsizeLagrangianresidency-timemodelEbolatwo-communitytravelbans

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

The paper asks when mobility restrictions between a high-risk and a low-risk community actually reduce the final size of an epidemic. Using a two-community epidemic model in which people spend fractions of their time in each community, it finds that sealing off the high-risk community can make the total epidemic larger, while allowing high-risk residents to move freely into a safer community can make it smaller. The key is that infected people generate fewer secondary cases when they are in the low-risk, better-resourced community, so exporting infection can lower overall transmission even as it raises cases in the safer community. This matters because cordons sanitaires and travel bans are common policy tools, and the model gives concrete conditions under which they backfire.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Lagrangian residency-time matrix P = (p_ij), where p_ij is the constant average fraction of time a resident of community i spends in community j, with i, j ∈ {1, 2}. This matrix converts two coupled communities into a single integrated epidemic system. Disease risk is summarized by community-specific basic reproduction numbers R01 > 1 and R02 < 1, and the global basic reproduction number R0(P) is computed using the next-generation matrix method. Two emergent thresholds carry the argument: t1^- (the HRC mobility level needed to push total final size below the cordon sanitaire baseline) and t1^+ (the HRC mobility level needed to make R0(P) = 1). The mechanism is that moving infectious people from high-transmission, resource-poor settings to low-transmission, resource-rich settings reduces the average number of secondary cases per infected person, shifting infections into the LRC while reducing the combined total.

What would settle it

The claim would be falsified by an observed epidemic in two neighboring communities with R01 ≈ 2.45 and R02 ≈ 0.9 in which the total final number of cases under unrestricted mobility from the high-risk to the low-risk community is larger than the total under a full cordon sanitaire, contrary to the predicted threshold behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For an epidemic centered in a high-risk community (HRC) with local basic reproduction number R01 > 1, the total final epidemic size is a non-monotonic function of mobility from the HRC to a low-risk community (LRC). With one-way mobility (t2 = 0), low mobility levels (t1 < 0.45) raise the total final size above the cordon sanitaire baseline, moderate mobility (t1 > 0.45) lowers it below that baseline, and high mobility (t1 > 0.8) can drive the global basic reproduction number R0(P) below one, ending the outbreak even when the LRC's local R02 is slightly greater than one. Conversely, mobility from the LRC into the HRC can undo this benefit: when R02 ≈ 0.9 and t2 rises above about 0.23, no amount of HRC mobility can bring the global R0 below one. The thresholds depend on the risk levels in each community and on their relative population densities, with a very safe LRC (R02 < 0.35) making any HRC mobility beneficial and an unsafe LRC (R02 > 1.45) making the cordon sanitaire the better strategy.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the fraction of time each resident spends in the other community is constant and identical for everyone, including infected and infectious residents; if sick people stop traveling once they feel ill, the mechanism that makes open borders reduce total cases weakens or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

When one-way mobility from the high-risk to the low-risk community is high enough, the global basic reproduction number can fall below one, meaning an ongoing outbreak is driven to extinction without any mobility ban.
A cordon sanitaire is beneficial only within specific risk windows: it helps when the low-risk community is unsafe (R02 > 1.45) but is the worst possible policy when the low-risk community is very safe (R02 < 0.35).
Mobility from the low-risk community into the high-risk community can cancel the benefit of HRC mobility, so travel advisories need to account for two-way movement, not just outflow from the outbreak zone.
Relative population density shifts the mobility thresholds: a larger high-risk population relative to the low-risk population lowers the mobility level needed for disease control, while a larger low-risk population raises it.
If the low-risk community's healthcare or sanitary conditions improve, the mobility threshold needed to control the outbreak falls, implying that investments in the safer community can substitute for movement restrictions.

Reading between the lines

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

If policy is set by each community independently, the cordon sanitaire remains locally attractive because it protects the low-risk community's own residents, even when it is globally harmful; a formal game-theoretic extension would likely predict over-restriction unless incentives are aligned.
The mechanism depends on infected, symptomatic people continuing to travel at the same rate as healthy people; behavioral data on sick individuals reducing travel would require lowering the mobility thresholds or could invalidate the control result in practice.
The same residency-time framework could be turned into a real-time decision tool: if local R0 values can be estimated from surveillance data during an outbreak, the thresholds t1^- and t1^+ give an immediate criterion for whether to relax or tighten travel restrictions.
Because the results hold for a range of disease types and depend only on risk differentials and density ratios, the qualitative conclusion that open mobility can outperform quarantine is likely to extend to other pathogens with similar transmission routes, though the specific thresholds would need recalibration.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this paper says a cordon sanitaire can make an epidemic worse, and that letting people move from the high-risk to a low-risk area can actually reduce total cases and even drive R0 below one. That's a genuinely counterintuitive result, and it's worth reading. But the quantitative claim depends on an assumption the paper doesn't flag: infected residents are presumed to move exactly as much as healthy ones. For Ebola, that's a hard sell.

What's new: the Lagrangian residency-time model itself is the authors' own prior framework, and Ref 22 already showed cordons can fail to minimize final size. This paper goes beyond that by systematically mapping thresholds t1^- and t1^+, including two-way mobility and density ratios. The regime plots (Figs 3 and 7) give a clear, useful picture of when a cordon helps, hurts, or is irrelevant. That is a real contribution, and the policy discussion is sensible.

The soft spots, in order of size. First, the arXiv version omits the SI containing the model equations, R0 computation, and final-size formulas. That means no one can verify the numbers or the threshold values from the preprint. I'd ask for the SI or put the equations in the main text. Second, and more substantive: the residency-time matrix P is constant in time and identical across disease states. The mechanism that makes mobility work is that infectious HRC residents spend up to 80% of their time in the LRC and generate fewer secondary cases there. For EVD, symptomatic patients are bedridden or isolated; they don't travel. If infected mobility is even half that of healthy people, the R0=1 curve shifts upward and the t1^+ threshold may not be attainable. The paper never mentions this, and the abstract states the conclusion without that qualifier. I think the qualitative result—cordon can increase total size—is probably robust, but the 'mobility can control the outbreak' claim is quantitatively fragile until this is tested. Third, the abstract says unrestricted mobility reduces overall epidemic size, but the text itself shows this only holds for R02 below about 1.45; above that, all mobility increases total size. The abstract is overbroad, though the discussion does qualify.

Overall: the paper is clear, the question is important, and the extension is real. It deserves a serious referee, but the authors need to provide the SI and address state-dependent mobility before the result is established. I'd bring it to reading group to kick around the policy implications.

Recommendation: send to peer review, with the expectation that the mobility-of-infected assumption is the main substantive revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a two-community epidemic model with a Lagrangian mobility formulation, in which individuals from a high-risk community (HRC) and a low-risk community (LRC) spend fixed proportions of time in each community. The model is calibrated to the 2014 West African EVD outbreak (R01 = 2.45) and used to compare final epidemic sizes under a cordon sanitaire (no mobility) versus various levels of one-way or two-way mobility. The central claims are that unrestricted one-way mobility from the HRC to the LRC can reduce the total final epidemic size below the cordon-sanitaire baseline when the LRC is sufficiently safe, and that sufficiently high mobility from the HRC can bring the global basic reproductive number R0(P) below one, thereby controlling the outbreak. The paper also identifies two mobility thresholds, t1- (mobility level that outperforms the cordon sanitaire) and t1+ (mobility level that drives R0 below one), and examines how these thresholds depend on the LRC risk level R02, the LRC mobility t2, and the population density ratio N1/N2. The conclusions are framed as general insights for when mobility restrictions are beneficial or harmful.

Significance. If the main results hold, they would provide a formal counterexample to the conventional view that restricting mobility from a high-risk to a low-risk community reduces overall epidemic burden, and they would offer an explanation for the observed counterproductive effects of cordons sanitaires in some outbreaks. The paper's use of a residence-time (Lagrangian) framework is a useful alternative to Eulerian metapopulation models, and the explicit thresholds t1- and t1+ are falsifiable predictions that can be tested with parameter estimates. However, the central quantitative claims rest on assumptions that are currently not verifiable from the preprint: the model equations, R0 derivation, and final-size formulas are relegated to an omitted SI appendix, and the main control result assumes that infected individuals remain as mobile as healthy individuals, an assumption that is not flagged or tested. The internal consistency of one stated result (R0<1 despite R02>1) is also questionable. The paper has merit as a conceptual contribution, but the strength of the conclusions currently exceeds what the available evidence supports.

major comments (3)

[Section 2] The residency-time matrix P = (p_ij) is assumed to be constant over time and identical for all residents, with no distinction between susceptible and infected individuals. The main control result, including the threshold t1+ ≈ 0.8 reported in Section 3.1 and the abstract's claim that high mobility can control an outbreak, depends on infected and infectious HRC residents spending up to 80% of their time in the LRC. For EVD, symptomatic patients are typically bedridden, hospitalized, or isolated, so their realized mobility is far below that of healthy residents. The paper never flags this dependence, and the abstract states the conclusion without this qualifier. This assumption is load-bearing: if infected individuals are even modestly less mobile than healthy ones, the export-of-cases mechanism weakens and t1+ may become unattainable. Please either relax this assumption in the model or provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the qualitative results persist when infected individuals have reduced mobility, and state the assumption explicitly in the abstract and conclusions.
[Section 2] The manuscript states that 'Detailed model formulation, computation of the community-specific and global basic reproductive numbers obtained using the next generation approach, as well as community-specific and global final epidemic size, can be found in the SI appendix.' However, the SI appendix is not included in the arXiv version. Consequently, the equations defining R0(P), the final-size formulas, and the numerical thresholds in Figures 1–8 cannot be independently checked. For a modeling paper in which all quantitative conclusions flow from these derivations, this is a central omission. The model equations and the R0 derivation must be included in the main text or a complete supplement must be provided with the submission.
[Section 4] The statement that 'high mobility by itself can lead to a global basic reproductive number below the critical threshold, even when R02 is slightly greater than one' is inconsistent with the model assumption in Section 2 that Community 2 is unable to support an outbreak in isolation (R02 < 1). Moreover, for a nonnegative next-generation matrix, the spectral radius (the global R0) is at least the spectral radius of each diagonal block, so if R02 > 1, the global R0 cannot be less than one regardless of mobility. This claim is either a typographical error (perhaps 'slightly less than one' was intended) or it indicates a problem with the R0 computation in the SI. Please correct the statement and check the level curves in Figures 4 and 5 against this bound.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1] The introduction states that 'our results hold for a range of disease types,' but all quantitative results use EVD parameters only. Please either provide an additional disease example or soften this claim.
[Section 3.1] The thresholds t1- and t1+ are defined in the text, but the notation is introduced after the phrase 'two empirical thresholds' in a way that may be confusing. Consider defining t1- and t1+ explicitly before the first use in the description of Figure 1.
[Figure 1] In the left panel of Figure 1, the threshold values t1 ≈ 0.45 and t1 ≈ 0.8 are described in the text but are not marked on the figure. Adding vertical dashed lines at these values would improve readability.
[Figure 4] The left panel of Figure 4 has y-axis labels that appear to contain numerical values such as '0.0234192' instead of R02 values, which makes the level curve difficult to interpret. Please regenerate the figure with clear axis labels.
[Section 3.3] In the discussion of Figure 7, the text refers to 'same populations densities' and 'identical populations densities' in the caption, but the figure description is not fully legible. Please ensure the figure caption specifies the population density ratio clearly.
[General] There are inconsistencies in the use of subscripts for t1 and t2 (e.g., t−1 vs. t1−). Please use consistent notation throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model outputs are computed from stated epidemiological assumptions, and the self-citations provide context rather than load-bearing support.

full rationale

The paper's conclusions are not equivalent to its inputs by construction. R01 = 2.45 is imported from published EVD estimates ([16,32,33]), while R02, population-density ratios, and the mobility parameters are assigned or scanned; the reported thresholds t1- and t1+ and the final epidemic sizes are computed from an SIR-type model through next-generation and final-size formulas (described as detailed in the SI), not fitted to those outputs. The Lagrangian residency-time framework is attributed to the authors' prior work ([30,22,31]), and the sharp-threshold statement does cite [30], but the framework itself is also explicitly stated in Section 2 (the matrix P = (p_ij) with p_ij >= 0 assumed constant over time), so the citations are contextual rather than load-bearing. There is no self-definitional construction in which an input is defined in terms of the target result, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The assumptions that residency times are identical across disease states and that detailed formulas are confined to the omitted SI affect realism and verifiability, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the residency-time mixing model and on the chosen values of R02 and population density ratios. R01 = 2.45 is taken from published estimates. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

R02 (basic reproduction number in low-risk community) = varied from 0 to >1.45; baseline 0.9
Chosen to represent different levels of safety of the low-risk community; central thresholds depend on this value.
population density ratio N1/N2 = k = 1/1000, 1/10, 1/2, 1, 2, 10, 1000
Varied in sensitivity analysis to assess effect of relative population sizes on mobility thresholds.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The two communities are well-mixed populations with constant residency-time fractions p_ij.
Section 2: 'The model incorporates the average proportion of time that individuals spend in each community as elements of the matrix P... assumed to be constant over time.' This is the core mixing assumption.
domain assumption In the absence of mobility, Community 1 sustains an epidemic (R01 > 1) and Community 2 does not (R02 < 1).
Section 2: 'Community 1 is assumed to be capable of sustaining an epidemic (R01 > 1) while Community 2 is assumed to be unable to support an outbreak in isolation (R02 < 1).' This sets the scenario under which the paper's claims hold.
domain assumption R01 = 2.45 from West African EVD outbreak estimates.
Section 2: 'The model is calibrated using data from the West African EVD outbreak, which gives a value of R01 = 2.45, [16,32,33].' The numerical thresholds depend on this value.
standard math Next-generation matrix method for R0 and standard final-size relations are valid for this model.
Section 2: 'computation of the community-specific and global basic reproductive numbers obtained using the next generation approach [34,35]'.
domain assumption One-way mobility baseline t2=0 in Section 3.1.
Section 3.1: 'Individuals from the safer community are assumed to avoid the HRC. That is, our two communities model is calibrated under the assumption that t2 = 0.' This simplification drives the main one-way mobility curves.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQJSFSR3

@misc{pith2026190805261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQJSFSR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05261}
}

read the original abstract

Mobility restrictions - travel advisories, trade and travel bans, border closures and, in extreme cases, area quarantines or cordons sanitaires - are among the most widely used measures to control infectious diseases. Restrictions of this kind were important in the response to epidemics of SARS (2003), H1N1 influenza (2009), and Ebola (2014). However, they do not always work as expected. The imposition of a cordon sanitaire to control the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak, for example, is argued to have led to a higher-than-expected number of cases in the quarantined area. To determine when mobility restrictions reduce the size of an epidemic, we use a model of disease transmission within and between economically heterogeneous locally connected communities. One community comprises a low-risk, resource-rich, low-density population with access to effective medical resources. The other comprises a high-risk, resource-poor, high-density population without access to effective medical resources. We find that the overall size of an epidemic centered in the high-risk community is sensitive to the stringency of mobility restrictions between the two communities. Unrestricted mobility between the two risk communities increases the number of secondary cases in the low-risk community but reduces the overall epidemic size. By contrast, the imposition of a cordon sanitaire around the high-risk community reduces the number of secondary infections in the low-risk community but increases the overall epidemic size. The degree to which mobility restrictions increase or decrease the overall epidemic size depends on the level of risk in each community and the characteristics of the disease.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05261 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (Left panel) Total attack rate for different Community [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Traveling time reduces or increases the total attack rate as function of the Community [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Left panel) Level curve R0(t1, R02) = 1 in the plane (t1, R02). Mobility from HRC can eradicate an EVD outbreak, (R01 = 2.45, N1 = N2). (Right panel) Level curve R0(t1, t2) = 1, for R01 = 2.45 and R02 = 0.9. We recognize that high levels of mobility also impose costs.…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (Left panel) Level curves of R0(t1, t2) = 1 for R01 = 2.45 and R02 = 1, 0.9, 0.8. (Right panel) Level curves R0(t1, t2) = 1, for R01 = 2.45 and R02 = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75. reducing the final size of an epidemic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (Left panel) Cordon sanitaire level curves for population density ratios N1 N2 = 1 10 , 1, 10. (Right panel) Extreme aggregation scenarios show convergence of mobility thresholds. The simulations reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (Left panel) Mobility regions for which the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: (left panel) shows the effects of population density disparities on the threshold condition R0(t1, t2) = 1. Simulations suggest that large population size in the safe community makes the twoway mobility strategy more effective at reducing the global basic reproductive…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(42):15124–15129, 2004

LarsHufnagel,DirkBrockmann,andTheoGeisel.Forecastandcontrolofepidemicsinaglobalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(42):15124–15129, 2004

work page 2004
[2]

Skip the trip: Air travelers’ behavioral responses to pandemic inﬂuenza.PloS one, 8(3):e58249, 2013

Eli P Fenichel, Nicolai V Kuminoﬀ, and Gerardo Chowell. Skip the trip: Air travelers’ behavioral responses to pandemic inﬂuenza.PloS one, 8(3):e58249, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Merg- ing economics and epidemiology to improve the prediction and management of infectious disease

Charles Perrings, Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Gerardo Chowell, Peter Daszak, Eli P Fenichel, David Finnoﬀ, Richard D Horan, A Marm Kilpatrick, Ann P Kinzig, Nicolai V Kuminoﬀ, et al. Merg- ing economics and epidemiology to improve the prediction and management of infectious disease. EcoHealth, 11(4):464–475, 2014

work page 2014
[4]

Some further consideration of the plague in eyam, 1665/6.Local population studies, 54:56–57, 1995

Philip Race. Some further consideration of the plague in eyam, 1665/6.Local population studies, 54:56–57, 1995. Page 11 / 13

work page 1995
[5]

Adreadfulheritage: interpretingepidemicdiseaseateyam,1666–2000

PatrickWallis. Adreadfulheritage: interpretingepidemicdiseaseateyam,1666–2000. In History Workshop Journal, volume 61, pages 31–56. Oxford University Press, 2006

work page 2000
[6]

A short history of yellow fever in the us.Bob Arnebeck, 2008

Bob Arnebeck. A short history of yellow fever in the us.Bob Arnebeck, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

Encyclopediaofplagueandpestilence: fromancienttimestothepresent

GeorgeCKohn. Encyclopediaofplagueandpestilence: fromancienttimestothepresent . Infobase Publishing, 2007

work page 2007
[8]

Publichealthandethicalconsiderationsinplanningforquar- antine

MartinCetronandJuliusLandwirth. Publichealthandethicalconsiderationsinplanningforquar- antine. The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 78(5):329, 2005

work page 2005

Show all 36 references

[9]

R. K. Hoﬀmann et.al. Ethical considerations in the use of cordons sanitaires, 2018

2018
[10]

McNeil Jr.NYT: Using a Tactic Unseen in a Century, Countries Cordon Oﬀ Ebola- Racked Areas, August 12, 2014

Donald G. McNeil Jr.NYT: Using a Tactic Unseen in a Century, Countries Cordon Oﬀ Ebola- Racked Areas, August 12, 2014

2014
[11]

Lessonsfromthehistoryofquarantine,fromplaguetoinﬂuenza a, 2018

CentersforDiseaseControlCDC. Lessonsfromthehistoryofquarantine,fromplaguetoinﬂuenza a, 2018

2018
[12]

New jersey releases nurse quarantined in ebola scare, 2018

Ashley Fantz CNN. New jersey releases nurse quarantined in ebola scare, 2018

2018
[13]

Ebola outbreaks in nigeria, senegal, appear contained: Cdc reports, 2018

Julie Steenhuysen. Ebola outbreaks in nigeria, senegal, appear contained: Cdc reports, 2018

2018
[14]

As ebola grips liberia’s capital, a quarantine sows social chaos, August 2014

Norimitsu Onishi. As ebola grips liberia’s capital, a quarantine sows social chaos, August 2014

2014
[15]

Springer, 2013

R Davis.The Spanish ﬂu: narrative and cultural identity in Spain, 1918. Springer, 2013

1918
[16]

Temporal variations in the eﬀective reproduction number of the 2014 west africa ebola outbreak.PLoS currents, 6, 2014

Sherry Towers, Oscar Patterson-Lomba, and Carlos Castillo-Chavez. Temporal variations in the eﬀective reproduction number of the 2014 west africa ebola outbreak.PLoS currents, 6, 2014

2014
[17]

2014-2016 ebola outbreak in west africa, 2018

Centers for Disease Control CDC. 2014-2016 ebola outbreak in west africa, 2018

2014
[18]

Proposal for a revised taxonomy of the family ﬁloviridae: classiﬁcation, names of taxa and viruses, and virus abbreviations

Jens H Kuhn, Stephan Becker, Hideki Ebihara, Thomas W Geisbert, Karl M Johnson, Yoshihiro Kawaoka, W Ian Lipkin, Ana I Negredo, Sergey V Netesov, Stuart T Nichol, et al. Proposal for a revised taxonomy of the family ﬁloviridae: classiﬁcation, names of taxa and viruses, and vir...

2010
[19]

Genomicsurveil- lance elucidates ebola virus origin and transmission during the 2014 outbreak.science, page 1259657, 2014

StephenKGire,AugustineGoba,KristianGAndersen,RachelSGSealfon,DanielJPark,Lansana Kanneh, SimbirieJalloh, MambuMomoh, MohamedFullah, GytisDudas, etal. Genomicsurveil- lance elucidates ebola virus origin and transmission during the 2014 outbreak.science, page 1259657, 2014

2014
[20]

Ebola-hit african states seal oﬀ outbreak epicentre, 2018

Agence France-Presse. Ebola-hit african states seal oﬀ outbreak epicentre, 2018

2018
[21]

Quarantining an entire liberian slum to ﬁght ebola is a recipe for disaster, 2018

Amesh Adalja. Quarantining an entire liberian slum to ﬁght ebola is a recipe for disaster, 2018

2018
[22]

Assessing the eﬃciency of movement restriction as a control strategy of ebola

Baltazar Espinoza, Victor Moreno, Derdei Bichara, and Carlos Castillo-Chavez. Assessing the eﬃciency of movement restriction as a control strategy of ebola. InMathematical and Statistical Modeling for Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases, pages 123–145. Springer, 2016

2016
[23]

P Galvani

A.Pandey, K.EAtkins, J.Medlock, N.Wenzel, J.PTownsend, ChildsJ.E,T.G.Nyenswah, M.L Ndeﬀo-Mba, and A. P Galvani. Strategies for containing ebola in west africa, 2014. Page 12 / 13

2014
[24]

Epidemic modeling in metapopulation systems with heterogeneous coupling pattern: Theory and simulations

Vittoria Colizza and Alessandro Vespignani. Epidemic modeling in metapopulation systems with heterogeneous coupling pattern: Theory and simulations. Journal of theoretical biology, 251(3):450–467, 2008

2008
[25]

Quarantine in a multi-species epidemic model with spatial dynamics.Mathematical biosciences, 206(1):46–60, 2007

Julien Arino, Richard Jordan, and P Van den Driessche. Quarantine in a multi-species epidemic model with spatial dynamics.Mathematical biosciences, 206(1):46–60, 2007

2007
[26]

Controlling pandemic ﬂu: the value of international air travel restrictions

Joshua M Epstein, D Michael Goedecke, Feng Yu, Robert J Morris, Diane K Wagener, and Georgiy V Bobashev. Controlling pandemic ﬂu: the value of international air travel restrictions. PloS one, 2(5):e401, 2007

2007
[27]

Human mobility networks, travel restrictions, and the global spread of 2009 h1n1 pandemic

Paolo Bajardi, Chiara Poletto, Jose J Ramasco, Michele Tizzoni, Vittoria Colizza, and Alessandro Vespignani. Human mobility networks, travel restrictions, and the global spread of 2009 h1n1 pandemic. PloS one, 6(1):e16591, 2011

2009
[28]

Assess- ingtheimpactoftravelrestrictionsoninternationalspreadofthe2014westafricanebolaepidemic

Chiara Poletto, Marcelo FC Gomes, Ana Pastore y Piontti, Luca Rossi, Livio Bioglio, Dennis L Chao,IraMLongini,MElizabethHalloran,VittoriaColizza,andAlessandroVespignani. Assess- ingtheimpactoftravelrestrictionsoninternationalspreadofthe2014westafricanebolaepidemic. Euro survei...

2014
[29]

Assessing the international spreading risk associated with the 2014 west african ebola outbreak.PLoS currents, 6, 2014

Marcelo FC Gomes, Ana Pastore y Piontti, Luca Rossi, Dennis Chao, Ira Longini, M Elizabeth Halloran, and Alessandro Vespignani. Assessing the international spreading risk associated with the 2014 west african ebola outbreak.PLoS currents, 6, 2014

2014
[30]

Sis and sir epidemic models under virtual dispersal.The Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, DOI: 10.1007/s11538-015-0113-5, 2015

Derdei Bichara, Yun Kang, Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Richard Horan, and Charles Perrings. Sis and sir epidemic models under virtual dispersal.The Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, DOI: 10.1007/s11538-015-0113-5, 2015

2015 doi
[31]

Perspectives on the role of mo- bility, behavior, and time scales in the spread of diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(51):14582–14588, 2016

Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Derdei Bichara, and Benjamin R Morin. Perspectives on the role of mo- bility, behavior, and time scales in the spread of diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(51):14582–14588, 2016

2016
[32]

Transmission dynamics and control of ebola virus disease (evd): a review.BMC medicine, 12(1):196, 2014

Gerardo Chowell and Hiroshi Nishiura. Transmission dynamics and control of ebola virus disease (evd): a review.BMC medicine, 12(1):196, 2014

2014
[33]

Estimating the reproduction number of ebola virus (ebov) during the 2014 outbreak in west africa.PLoS currents, 6, 2014

Christian L Althaus. Estimating the reproduction number of ebola virus (ebov) during the 2014 outbreak in west africa.PLoS currents, 6, 2014

2014
[34]

Diekmann, J

O. Diekmann, J. A. P. Heesterbeek, and J. A. J. Metz. On the deﬁnition and the computation of the basic reproduction ratioR0 in models for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations.J. Math. Biol., 28(4):365–382, 1990

1990
[35]

reproductionnumbersandsub-thresholdendemicequilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission.Math

P.vandenDriesscheandJ.Watmough. reproductionnumbersandsub-thresholdendemicequilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission.Math. Biosci., 180:29–48, 2002

2002
[36]

Wells, Abhishek Pandey, Alyssa S

Chad R. Wells, Abhishek Pandey, Alyssa S. Parpia, Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, Burton H. Singer, and Alison P. Galvani. Ebola vaccination in the democratic republic of congo (in press).Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019. Page 13 / 13

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(42):15124–15129, 2004

LarsHufnagel,DirkBrockmann,andTheoGeisel.Forecastandcontrolofepidemicsinaglobalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(42):15124–15129, 2004

work page 2004

[2] [2]

Skip the trip: Air travelers’ behavioral responses to pandemic inﬂuenza.PloS one, 8(3):e58249, 2013

Eli P Fenichel, Nicolai V Kuminoﬀ, and Gerardo Chowell. Skip the trip: Air travelers’ behavioral responses to pandemic inﬂuenza.PloS one, 8(3):e58249, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Merg- ing economics and epidemiology to improve the prediction and management of infectious disease

Charles Perrings, Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Gerardo Chowell, Peter Daszak, Eli P Fenichel, David Finnoﬀ, Richard D Horan, A Marm Kilpatrick, Ann P Kinzig, Nicolai V Kuminoﬀ, et al. Merg- ing economics and epidemiology to improve the prediction and management of infectious disease. EcoHealth, 11(4):464–475, 2014

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Some further consideration of the plague in eyam, 1665/6.Local population studies, 54:56–57, 1995

Philip Race. Some further consideration of the plague in eyam, 1665/6.Local population studies, 54:56–57, 1995. Page 11 / 13

work page 1995

[5] [5]

Adreadfulheritage: interpretingepidemicdiseaseateyam,1666–2000

PatrickWallis. Adreadfulheritage: interpretingepidemicdiseaseateyam,1666–2000. In History Workshop Journal, volume 61, pages 31–56. Oxford University Press, 2006

work page 2000

[6] [6]

A short history of yellow fever in the us.Bob Arnebeck, 2008

Bob Arnebeck. A short history of yellow fever in the us.Bob Arnebeck, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Encyclopediaofplagueandpestilence: fromancienttimestothepresent

GeorgeCKohn. Encyclopediaofplagueandpestilence: fromancienttimestothepresent . Infobase Publishing, 2007

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Publichealthandethicalconsiderationsinplanningforquar- antine

MartinCetronandJuliusLandwirth. Publichealthandethicalconsiderationsinplanningforquar- antine. The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 78(5):329, 2005

work page 2005