Dynamic analysis of the role of innate immunity in SEIS epidemic model.

Abstract

Consideration of every important aspect while modeling a disease makes the model more precise and the disease eradication strategy more powerful. In the present paper, we analyze the importance of innate immunity on SEIS modeling. We propose an SEIS model with Holling type II and type III functions representing innate immunity. We find the existence and stability conditions for the equilibria. When innate immunity is in the form of Holling type II function, the disease-free equilibrium exists for reproduction number less than unity and is locally asymptotically stable, and supercritical transcritical (forward) as well as subcritical transcritical (backward) bifurcation may occur where the contact rate beta =beta ^* acts as the bifurcation parameter. Hence, disease-free equilibrium need not be globally stable. For reproduction number greater than unity unique endemic equilibrium exists which is locally asymptotically stable. The global stability conditions for the same are deduced with the help of Lozinskibreve{i} measure. When innate immunity is considered a Holling type III function, the disease-free equilibrium point exists for reproduction number less than unity and is locally as well as globally stable. The existence of either unique or multiple endemic equilibria is found when reproduction number is greater than unity, and there exists at least one locally asymptotically stable equilibrium point and bistability can also be encountered. The conditions for the existence of Andronov–Hopf bifurcation are deduced for both cases. Moreover, we observe that ignoring innate immunity annihilates the possibility of Andronov–Hopf bifurcation. Numerical simulation is performed to validate the mathematical findings. Comparing the obtained results to the case when innate immunity is ignored, it is deduced that ignoring it ends the possibility of backward bifurcation, Andronov–Hopf bifurcation as well as the existence of multiple equilibria, and it also leads to the prediction of higher infection than the actual which may deflect the accuracy of the model to a high extent. This would further lead to false predictions and inefficient disease control strategies which in turn would make disease eradication a difficult and more expensive task.