
The fire safety management policy is the premise for city managers to master the urban fire safety situation and solve the urban fire safety problems. An excellent fire safety management policy can obtain the basic data of fire safety, analyze the existing problems and potential safety hazards, and provide targeted measures for urban fire safety management. At present, the traditional fire safety management policy has exposed many shortcomings, such as the lack of technical support for firefighting means, inaccurate fire data analysis, etc., which ultimately led to low fire extinguishing efficiency and wasted some human and material resources. In the context of smart cities, big data (BD) and artificial intelligence (AI) have gradually integrated into various fields of urban development. This paper studied the fire safety management policies of smart cities based on BD analysis method. First, it summarized the relationship among BD, AI and smart cities, then analyzed the limitations of traditional urban fire safety management models, and finally proposed new fire safety management methods based on BD, AI and sustainable development. This article analyzed the urban fire protection situation from January to June 2022 in Nanchang, and verified the effectiveness of the method proposed in this article. Research has shown that the new fire safety management policy has reduced the number of fires, improved fire extinguishing efficiency by 9.07%, reduced property damage and casualties, and has a high recognition of the method. This also provides a reference for the next step of BD's application in smart cities.
Citation: Xiaodong Qian. Evaluation on sustainable development of fire safety management policies in smart cities based on big data[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 17003-17017. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023758
[1] | Huafei Di, Yadong Shang, Jiali Yu . Existence and uniform decay estimates for the fourth order wave equation with nonlinear boundary damping and interior source. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 221-261. doi: 10.3934/era.2020015 |
[2] | Yi Cheng, Ying Chu . A class of fourth-order hyperbolic equations with strongly damped and nonlinear logarithmic terms. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 3867-3887. doi: 10.3934/era.2021066 |
[3] | Ibtissam Issa, Zayd Hajjej . Stabilization for a degenerate wave equation with drift and potential term with boundary fractional derivative control. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(8): 4926-4953. doi: 10.3934/era.2024227 |
[4] | Xu Liu, Jun Zhou . Initial-boundary value problem for a fourth-order plate equation with Hardy-Hénon potential and polynomial nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 599-625. doi: 10.3934/era.2020032 |
[5] | Shuting Chang, Yaojun Ye . Upper and lower bounds for the blow-up time of a fourth-order parabolic equation with exponential nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(11): 6225-6234. doi: 10.3934/era.2024289 |
[6] | Gongwei Liu . The existence, general decay and blow-up for a plate equation with nonlinear damping and a logarithmic source term. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 263-289. doi: 10.3934/era.2020016 |
[7] | Xiaoqiang Dai, Chao Yang, Shaobin Huang, Tao Yu, Yuanran Zhu . Finite time blow-up for a wave equation with dynamic boundary condition at critical and high energy levels in control systems. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 91-102. doi: 10.3934/era.2020006 |
[8] | Yang Liu, Wenke Li . A family of potential wells for a wave equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 807-820. doi: 10.3934/era.2020041 |
[9] | Hami Gündoğdu . RETRACTED ARTICLE: Impact of damping coefficients on nonlinear wave dynamics in shallow water with dual damping mechanisms. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(4): 2567-2576. doi: 10.3934/era.2025114 |
[10] | Liangliang Li . Chaotic oscillations of 1D wave equation with or without energy-injections. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2600-2617. doi: 10.3934/era.2022133 |
The fire safety management policy is the premise for city managers to master the urban fire safety situation and solve the urban fire safety problems. An excellent fire safety management policy can obtain the basic data of fire safety, analyze the existing problems and potential safety hazards, and provide targeted measures for urban fire safety management. At present, the traditional fire safety management policy has exposed many shortcomings, such as the lack of technical support for firefighting means, inaccurate fire data analysis, etc., which ultimately led to low fire extinguishing efficiency and wasted some human and material resources. In the context of smart cities, big data (BD) and artificial intelligence (AI) have gradually integrated into various fields of urban development. This paper studied the fire safety management policies of smart cities based on BD analysis method. First, it summarized the relationship among BD, AI and smart cities, then analyzed the limitations of traditional urban fire safety management models, and finally proposed new fire safety management methods based on BD, AI and sustainable development. This article analyzed the urban fire protection situation from January to June 2022 in Nanchang, and verified the effectiveness of the method proposed in this article. Research has shown that the new fire safety management policy has reduced the number of fires, improved fire extinguishing efficiency by 9.07%, reduced property damage and casualties, and has a high recognition of the method. This also provides a reference for the next step of BD's application in smart cities.
It has been almost two years since the outbreak of COVID-19. A large number of international research results have given us a certain understanding of the virus. This is a severe respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus [1,2]. The International Committee on Taxonomy of viruses named the virus SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted through respiratory tract. The clinical symptoms of infected people are mostly fever, dry cough and fatigue, and some patients are asymptomatic infected people. When the disease is serious, it will also cause organ failure and even death [3,4].
Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing. According to the latest outbreak of the World Health Organization, as of October 2021, there were more than 70 million newly confirmed cases in Europe [5]. The United Kingdom is one of the worst-affected countries in Europe, with more than 8 million cumulative cases, of which more than 7 million were diagnosed in England alone [6], accounting for 85% of the total cumulative cases reported in the United Kingdom.
Since more than 80% of confirmed cases in Britain are concentrated in England, we intend to do some theoretical research based on the data of England for the reference of government decision-making. Figure 1 shows the daily new cases data of COVID-19 epidemic in England during 2020 [6]. In early March, due to the obvious increase of new cases, the British government began to implement the first large-scale social blockade at the end of March and gradually unsealed at the beginning of June. This phase corresponds to the phase in which the first small peak appears in Figure 1. In the three months after the first unsealing, the epidemic situation in the region had been relatively gentle. However, since September, the number of new cases per day had increased significantly. By the end of October, the number of new cases per day had reached about 20000.At this time, the British government once again announced that it would implement the second large-scale social blockade on November 5, which lasted until December 2nd. Soon after the second unsealing, the third wave of more large-scale epidemic began, and there were reports that a mutant virus with stronger transmission ability was detected, and the epidemic reached a stage that was difficult to control. On December 20th, Britain ushered in the third social blockade, which lasted until February 2021.
H. Ward et al. based on antibody levels in 365,000 people, showed that at the start of the second wave of infections in England, only 4.4% of adults had IgG antibodies detected using text for lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) [7]. A study on the antibody positive rate of asymptomatic and symptomatic infected people in Wanzhou District of Chongqing by Quanxin Long et al showed that after 8 weeks of infection, the antibody concentration of more than 90% of the participants decreased by more than 70% [8]. A study on the neutralizing antibody level of SARS-CoV-2 patients within three months after infection found that after analyzing the serum samples of 65 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, 95% of the cases had seroconversion [9]. Some researchers found that the antibody titers of the two virus strains decreased significantly, and the delta variant virus strain decreased more significantly than the wild strain [10,11,12]. The infectious disease dynamics model is a key tool for studying the spread of infectious diseases. It is generally divided into four compartments, susceptible (S), exposed (E), infected (I) and recovered (R) compartments. It can clearly describe the dynamic relationship between various warehouses in the process of virus transmission, and give relatively accurate predictions on the development trend of infectious diseases. P. Wintachai [13] et al. predicted the change trend of COVID-19 cases over time by establishing SEIR infectious disease dynamics model considering different vaccination rates. A. Fuady [14] et al. established an infectious disease dynamics model considering different vaccination times to explore the inhibitory effect of changes in vaccination time on the spread of covid-19 epidemics. M. Angeli et. al. [15] et al introduced SAIVR mathematical model to forecast the covid-19 epidemic evolution during the vaccination campaign by employing a semi-supervised machine learning process. S. Zhai [16] et al. studied an SEIR-type epidemic model with time delay and vaccination control, the vaccination strategy was expressed as a state delayed feedback which was related to the current and previous state of the epidemic model and investigated the non-negativity and boundedness of the model. J. Medina [17] et al. modeled a trustable and reliable management system based on block chain for vaccine distribution by extending the SEIR model, which included prevention measures such as mask-wearing, social distancing, vaccination rate, and vaccination efficiency. A. Karabay [18] et al. presented a particle-based SEIR epidemic simulator as a tool to assess the impact of different vaccination strategies on viral propagation and to model sterilizing and effective immunization outcomes and the simulator included modules to support contact tracing of the interactions amongst individuals and epidemiological testing of the general population. J. Wieland [19] et al. developed a model for the simulation of the SARS Cov-2 spread in Germany in the context of a complementary course at the Leuphana University. It tried to simulate different scenarios of the number of cases with the help of ODE. Chen [20] et al. used compartmental models to model and analyze the COVID-19 dynamics of different considered populations as susceptible, exposed, infected and rcovered compartments (SEIR). They derived control-oriented compartmental models of the pandemic, together with constructive control laws based on the Lyapunov theory. Antibody levels decrease over time after a person recovers from COVID-19, there will be a chance of re-infection with the virus. In the first model, we explore the impact of declining antibody levels on the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK, taking into account that a certain proportion of recoveries would become susceptible again. In the optimized model, we add the vaccinated compartment and study the impact of the vaccine's effect on the outbreak.
This study selects the daily new data of the COVID-19 epidemic in England from September 1 to October 31, 2020 as the data for model fitting, that is, the data in the middle and early stages of the second wave of the epidemic in England. Based on these possible factors: 1) The first wave of the epidemic has ended, and the level of antibodies in the infected people began to decline; 2) The British government did not have any intervention policy during this period; 3) There was no vaccination during this period; Therefore we used data for this time period when considering the impact of declining antibody levels on the spread of COVID-19 in this model.
Because the spread of COVID-19 has a long incubation period and the incubation period is contagious, in our model, we consider the incubation period and adopt the SEIR model. We divide the total population N into four categories: susceptible (S), exposed (E), infected (I), and recovered (R). β is the rate of disease transmission, σ is the conversion rate from exposed people to infected people, γ is the disease recovery rate, μ is the mortality due to disease, and P is the conversion rate from recovered group to susceptible group. The SEIR infectious disease dynamics model considering the decline of antibody level is shown in Figure 2.
According to the above COVID-19 spread diagram, we establish the infectious disease dynamics model as follows:
{dS/dt=−βS(E+I)+PR,dE/dt=βS(E+I)−σE,dI/dt=σE−(μ+γ)I,dR/dt=γI−PR. | (2.1) |
We obtain, when I=0, the disease-free equilibrium point of model (2.1) is E01=(S0,0,0,0).When I≠0, the endemic equilibrium point of model (2.1) is
E1∗=(S0R0,γ+μσI∗,I∗,γPI∗),I∗≠0. |
The basic reproduction number refers to the average number of secondary cases after an infected individual enters the susceptible population [21], the next generation matrix is the most commonly used method to calculate the basic reproduction number.
In order to calculate the basic reproduction number of model (2.1), we take
F=(βS(E+I)0),V=(σE−σE+(γ+μ)I). |
The Jacobian matrices of F and V are
F=(βSβS00),V=(σ0−σγ+μ). |
At disease-free equilibrium, we obtain
FV−1|E01=(βS0σ+βS0γ+μβS0γ+μ00). |
The basic reproduction number R0 is the spectral radius of FV−1|E01, so the expression is
R0=βS0(σ+γ+μ)σ(γ+μ). |
Theorem 1. When R0<0, model (2.1) is stable at the disease-free equilibrium point, otherwise unstable.
Proof. The Jacobian matrix of model (2.1) at E01 is
J|E01=(0−βS0−βS000βS0−σβS000σ−(γ+μ)000γ−P). |
The matrix eigenvalue satisfies the following formula:
|λE−J|E01|=|λβS0βS000λ−βS0+σ−βS000−σλ+γ+μ000−γλ+P|=λ(λ+P)[λ2+(σ+γ+μ−βS0)λ+σ(γ+μ)−βS0(σ+γ+μ)]. |
Obviously λ1=0,λ2=−P<0, the other two eigenvalues λ3,λ4 satisfy the equation
P(λ)=λ2+a1λ+a2=0, |
where
a1=σ+γ+μ−βS0,a2=σ(γ+μ)−βS0(σ+γ+μ). |
Easy to know
βS0σ+γ+μ=R0σ(γ+μ)(σ+γ+μ)2<1, |
therefore,
a1=σ+γ+μ−βS0>0,a2=σ(γ+μ)−βS0(σ+γ+μ)=σ(γ+μ)(1−R0). |
So, when R0<1, we obrain a1>0 and a2>0. According to Hurwitz discriminant method, the characteristic roots λ3,λ4 of P(λ) have negative real parts.
To sum up, among the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix of model (2.1), the real part of four eigenvalues is negative and one is zero. So, when R0<1, model (2.1) is stable at the disease-free equilibrium point, otherwise unstable.
Antibody levels decline over time, and herd immunity approaches that rely on natural immunity become unfeasible. Therefore, on the basis of the above model (2.1), we add the vaccination compartment (people who were successfully vaccinated) to establish the SEIRV model. In this model, we consider daily vaccination of susceptible populations at a fixed vaccination rate and explore the impact of varying injection and failure rates on the outbreak in England. The propagation mechanism of the model is shown in the Figure 3. Here α refers to the daily proportion of vaccination, ω is the vaccine failure rate and refers to the reciprocal of the duration of vaccine effectiveness. The other parameters are the same of model (2.1).
According to the above COVID-19 diagram, the infectious disease dynamics model we established is
{dS/dt=−αS−(1−α)βS(E+I)+PR+ωV,dE/dt=(1−α)βS(E+I)−σE,dI/dt=σE−(γ+μ)I,dR/dt=γI−PR,dV/dt=αS−ωV. | (3.1) |
Let
{−αS−(1−α)βS(E+I)+PR+ωV=0,(1−α)βS(E+I)−σE=0,σE−(γ+μ)I=0,γI−PR=0,αS−ωV=0. |
When I=0, there are
S=S0,E=0,R=0,V=αS0ω. |
The disease-free equilibrium point of model (3.1) is
E02=(S0,0,0,0,αS0ω). |
When I≠0, we obtain
S∗=S0R0,E∗=γ+μσI∗,R∗=γPI∗,V∗=αS0ωRC. |
Therefore, the endemic equilibrium point of model (3.1) is
E2∗=(S0RC,γ+μσI∗,I∗,γPI∗,αS0ωRC),I∗≠0. |
The number of controlled reproduction refers to the number of people who can be infected by an infected person during the infection period under certain prevention and control measures [22]. It is also calculated by the method of next generation matrix.
In order to calculate the control reproduction number of model (3.1), we take
F=((1−α)βS(E+I)0),V=(σE−σE+(γ+μ)I). |
The Jacobian matrices of F and V are
F=((1−α)βS(1−α)βS00),V=(σ0−σγ+μ). |
At disease-free equilibrium, there is
FV−1|E02=((1−α)βS0σ+(1−α)βS0γ+μ(1−α)βS0γ+μ00). |
The control reproduction number is the spectral radius of FV−1|E02, and the expression is
RC=(1−α)βS0(σ+γ+μ)σ(γ+μ). |
Theorem 2. When RC<1, the model (3.1) is locally asymptotically stable at the disease-free equilibrium point, otherwise it is unstable.
Proof. The Jacobian matrix of model (3.1) at E02 is
J|E02=(−α−(1−α)βS0−(1−α)βS0Pω0(1−α)βS0−σ(1−α)βS0000σ−(γ+μ)0000γ−P0α000−ω). |
The matrix eigenvalue satisfies the following formula:
|λE−J|E02|=|λ+α(1−α)βS0(1−α)βS0−P−ω0λ−(1−α)βS0+σ−(1−α)βS0000−σλ+γ+μ0000−γλ+P0−α000λ+ω|=(λ+P)[λ2+(α+ω)λ+2αω]{λ2+[σ+γ+μ−(1−α)βS0]λ+σ(γ+μ)−(1−α)βS0(σ+γ+μ)}. |
Obviously λ1=−P<0, the other eigenvalues λ2,λ3 satisfy the equation
P1(λ)=λ2+A1λ+A2, |
where
A1=ω+α,A2=2ωα. |
We obtain
Δ1=1>0,Δ2=|A110A2|=|ω+α102ωα|>0, |
which means λ2 and λ3 have negative real parts. The last two eigenvalues λ4,λ5 satisfy the equation
P2(λ)=λ2+B1λ+B2, |
where
B1=σ+γ+μ−(1−α)βS0,B2=σ(γ+μ)−(1−α)βS0(σ+γ+μ). |
So, when RC<1, we obrain B1>0 and B2>0. According to Hurwitz discriminant method, the characteristic roots λ4 and λ5 have negative real parts.
To sum up, all eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix of model (3.1) have negative real parts, so model (3.1) is locally asymptotically stable at the disease-free equilibrium point, otherwise it is unstable.
According to model (2.1), the number of new cases per day in England from September 1 to October 31 is fitted by the nonlinear least squares method, and the fitting result is shown in Figure 4. Within the allowable range of error, we set the initial value of the susceptible as S0=55699400, the initial value of exposed people as E0=6500, the initial value of infected people as I0=1041, meaning the number of new cases in England on September 1, and the initial value of recovered people as 200. The conversion rate from exposed people to infected people is σ=1/12(day−1) [23], the recovery rate of disease is γ=1/14(day−1) [24] and the mortality rate is μ=0.003 [25], which are selected according to the actual transmission of infectious diseases. And we obtain the transmission rate is β=1.1295×10−9 and the conversion rate from the recovered group to susceptible group is P=1.8888×10−6 by fitting.
The fitting results of the improved SEIR model are in good agreement with the England data, and can better reflect the growth trend of the COVID-19 epidemic in England.
In the SEIRV model (3.1), α refers to the daily vaccination rate, which is further explained here. The overall immunization rates corresponding to different daily vaccination rates (60 days after vaccination) is shown in Figure 5. The total population of England is about 50 million, α=0.005 means that 250,000 people are vaccinated on the first day. After 60 days of continuous vaccination, the overall immunization rate is 25.9%.
In SEIRV model, the meaning of vaccine failure rate ω refers to the reciprocal of the duration of vaccine effectiveness, that is, each corresponds to a duration of vaccine effectiveness. The data details are shown in Table 1.
Vaccine failure rates | Vaccine effective time period (days) |
0 | FOREVER |
0.001 | 1000 |
0.002 | 500 |
0.003 | 333 |
0.004 | 250 |
0.005 | 200 |
0.006 | 167 |
0.007 | 143 |
0.008 | 125 |
0.009 | 111 |
0.01 | 100 |
0.02 | 50 |
0.03 | 33 |
0.04 | 25 |
0.05 | 20 |
In order to evaluate the role of vaccines in epidemic control, we investigate the impact of different vaccination rates and failure rates on the spread of COVID-19 epidemic in England. We change the vaccine failure rate when the fixed vaccination rate is 0.005, and simulate the impact of different failure rates on the spread of COVID-19 epidemic in England. The results are shown in Figures 6–8. In Figure 6, the failure rates are taken from 0 to 0.01 in steps of 0.001; in Figure 7, the failure rate is taken from 0.01 to 0.05 in steps of 0.01; in Figure 8, the failure rate is taken from 0.01 to 0.02 in steps of 0.001. As can be seen from Figures 6–8, with the decrease of vaccine failure rate, the peak of epidemic situation will gradually decrease. When the failure rate is less than 0.01, the peak time will advance with the decrease of failure rate; when the failure rate is greater than 0.01, the peak time will be delayed with the decrease of failure rate. If only Figures 6 and 7 are used to illustrate that 0.01 is the boundary value of peak time trend change, it may be coincidental because the failure rate less than 0.01 is taken as the step of 0.001, and the failure rate greater than 0.01 is taken as the step of 0.01. Therefore, we further take the failure rate from 0.01 to 0.02 in steps of 0.001 for simulation, as shown in Figure 8. It can be seen from Figure 8 that the time of peak value is delayed with the decrease of failure efficiency. In general, when the step of failure rate change is 0.001, the simulation shows that when the fixed vaccination rate is 0.005, the peak of epidemic situation will decrease with the decrease of failure efficiency. When the failure rate is less than 0.01, the peak time will advance with the decrease of failure efficiency; when the failure rate is greater than 0.01, the peak time will be delayed with the decrease of failure efficiency. When the vaccination rate is 0.005, the line chart of the epidemic peak under different vaccine failure rates is shown in Figure 9. When the value of failure rate is large (greater than 0.02), the peak will increase significantly. When the failure rate is 0.001 the peak value is 81.4% lower than the peak value when the failure rate is 0.01, and when the failure rate is 0.01 the peak value is 89.5% lower than the peak value when the failure rate is 0.02. Therefore, the lower the vaccine failure rate, the lower the peak of the epidemic. The peak values under different failure rates are shown in Table 2.
Vaccine failure rates | Vaccine effective time period (days) | Peak value | Peak time (days) |
0 | FOREVER | 17126 | 101 |
0.001 | 1000 | 17934 | 106 |
0.002 | 500 | 18887 | 113 |
0.003 | 333 | 20032 | 121 |
0.004 | 250 | 21443 | 130 |
0.005 | 200 | 23244 | 143 |
0.006 | 167 | 25658 | 160 |
0.007 | 143 | 29159 | 187 |
0.008 | 125 | 35046 | 239 |
0.009 | 111 | 49967 | 435 |
0.01 | 100 | 96669 | 634 |
0.02 | 50 | 924,980 | 445 |
0.03 | 33 | 1,481,000 | 383 |
0.04 | 25 | 1,823,700 | 355 |
0.05 | 20 | 2,050,800 | 339 |
When the vaccination rate is 0.005, the line chart of the peak time of epidemic situation under different vaccine failure rates is shown in Figure 10. It can be seen when the failure rate is less than 0.01, the peak time will advance with the decrease of failure rate; when the failure rate is greater than 0.01, the peak time will be delayed with the decrease of failure rate. When the failure rate is 0.01, the peak time is 528 days later than that when the failure rate is 0.001 and 295 days later than that when the failure rate is 0.05. The peak time under different failure rates is shown in Table 2.
We also discuss the number of new cases per day at 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 days in England with different failure rates when the vaccination rate is 0.005. The results are shown in Figure 11. It can be seen from the figure that at the same time, the smaller the failure rate, the fewer the number of cases. On the 60th day of vaccination, the vaccine with failure rate of 0.002 is 5.8% lower than the vaccine with failure rate of 0.01; on the 70th day of vaccination, the vaccine with failure rate of 0.002 is 9.1% lower than the vaccine with failure rate of 0.01. Therefore, with the extension of time, the vaccine with low failure rate is more effective in reducing the number of cases than the vaccine with high failure rate. The number of cases is shown in Table 3.
30 days | 40 days | 50 days | 60 days | 70 days | |
ω=0.002 | 8337 | 10214 | 12079 | 13862 | 15476 |
ω=0.006 | 8366 | 10305 | 12298 | 14307 | 16276 |
ω=0.010 | 8393 | 10390 | 12502 | 14720 | 17020 |
When the vaccination rate is 0.01, we discuss the impact of different vaccine failure rates on the spread of the epidemic in England, the results are shown in Figures 12–15. The simulation results show that the smaller the failure rate is, the lower the peak of epidemic situation is, and 0.019 is the boundary value of failure rate. When the failure rate is less than 0.019, the peak time will advance with the decrease of failure rate; when the failure rate is greater than 0.019, the peak time will be delayed with the decrease of failure rate. Some data are shown in Table 4.
failure rates | 0 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.015 | 0.019 | 0.02 | 0.021 |
Peak value | 8856 | 9452 | 10354 | 12125 | 38455 | 66507 | 101150 |
Peak time (days) | 54 | 62 | 75 | 110 | 979 | 956 | 892 |
When the vaccine failure rate is 0.005, the impact of different vaccination rates on the spread of the epidemic in England is shown in Figure 16. The vaccination rates change from 0.005 to 0.025 in steps of 0.005. According to the simulation, the peak of epidemic situation decreases with the increase of vaccination rate, and the peak time advances with the increase of vaccination rate. When the vaccination rate is 0.025, the peak value decrease by 74.8% and the peak time is 114 days earlier than that when the vaccination rate is 0.005. The result is given in Table 5.
Vaccination rate | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.015 | 0.02 | 0.025 |
Peak value | 23244 | 9452 | 7269 | 6370 | 5857 |
Peak time (days) | 143 | 62 | 42 | 34 | 29 |
In order to comprehensively evaluate the effects of vaccination rate and failure rate on the peak infection cases and peak time, we add heat-maps for peak infection cases and peak times, the results are shown in Figures 17 and 18. The vaccination rates change from 0.002 to 0.005 in steps of 0.001 and the vaccine failure rates change from 0.001 to 0.01 in steps of 0.001.
The first part of this study is to develop an improved SEIR model of COVID-19 transmission in England taking into account the decline in antibody levels in recovers. In the second part, a SEIRV vaccination model is established on the basis of the decline in antibody levels, taking into account that susceptible populations are vaccinated at a fixed vaccination rate every day. We calculate the basic reproduction number of model (2.1) and the control reproduction number of model (3.1), calculate the disease-free equilibrium point and endemic equilibrium point of the two models, and analyze the stability of the model.
In the numerical simulation part, we further explain the vaccination rate and failure rate: α=0.005 means that 250,000 people are vaccinated every day on the basis of 50 million people in England, on the basis of this vaccination rate, the overall immunization rate is 25.9% after 60 days of continuous vaccination. In addition, the meaning of vaccine failure rate ω refers to the reciprocal of the duration of vaccine effectiveness, that is, each corresponds to a duration of vaccine effectiveness.
In model (3.1), we investigate the impact of different failure rates on the spread of the epidemic in England when the vaccination rates are 0.005 and 0.01. The results shows that when the fixed vaccination rate is 0.005, when the failure rate is 0.001, the peak value is 81.4% lower than that when the failure rate is 0.01, and when the failure rate is 0.01the peak value is 89.5% lower than that when the failure rate is 0.02. In addition, when the failure rate is 0.01, the peak time is 528 days later than when the failure rate is 0.001 and 295 days later than when the failure rate is 0.05. Therefore, the peak of epidemic situation will decrease with the decrease of failure efficiency. The peak time of the epidemic has two situations. When the failure rate is less than 0.01, the peak time will advance with the decrease of failure efficiency; when the failure rate is greater than 0.01, the peak time will be delayed with the decrease of failure efficiency. On the 60th day of vaccination, the vaccine with failure rate of 0.002 is 5.8% lower than the vaccine with failure rate of 0.01, on the 70th day of vaccination, the vaccine with failure rate of 0.002 is 9.1% lower than the vaccine with failure rate of 0.01. Therefore, with the extension of time, the vaccine with low failure rate is more effective in reducing the number of cases than the vaccine with high failure rate. When the fixed vaccination rate is 0.01, the peak of epidemic situation will decrease with the decrease of failure efficiency. When the failure rate is less than 0.019, the peak time will advance with the decrease of failure efficiency; when the failure rate is greater than 0.019, the peak time will be delayed with the decrease of failure efficiency. We also investigate the impact of different vaccination rates on the spread of the epidemic in England when the fixed vaccine failure rate is 0.005. The peak of epidemic situation decreases with the increase of vaccination rate, and the peak time is advanced with the increase of vaccination rate. When the vaccination rate is 0.025, the peak value decreases by 74.8% and the peak time is 114 days earlier than that when the vaccination rate was 0.005.
The rationality of the fitting value of P=1.8888×10−6. This fitting value refers to the level of antibody decline in the actual recovered patients, including not only the number of hospitalizations officially counted, but also the number of uncounted patients with moderate and mild symptoms, and the number of confirmed asymptomatic infections. This value is somewhat underestimated. If only the number of recovered patients in hospital is counted according to official data from the UK government, this fitted value may have practical significance. Antibody levels take longer to drop due to higher antibody levels in severely recovered patients [26].
In model (3.1), the meaning of the vaccine failure rate refers to the inverse of the effective duration of the vaccine, that is, the failure rate corresponds to the effective duration of an effective vaccine. The data details are shown in Table 1. Similarly, the vaccination rate corresponds to a time period in which vaccinations are completed, for example α=0.005 indicating that it takes 200 days to complete all vaccinations.
In the numerical simulation part, the peak always decreases as the vaccine failure rate decreases. Peak arrival times may be related to boundary values. When the failure rate is less than the boundary value, the peak time will advance as the failure rate decreases; when the failure rate is greater than the boundary value, the peak time will be delayed as the failure rate decreases. In this study, when the vaccination rate was 0.005, the boundary value for the failure rate was 0.01; when the vaccination rate was assumed to be 0.01, the boundary value for the failure rate was 0.019. The boundary values in this paper are based on the failure rate with a step size of 0.001, when we take a smaller step size for simulation, we may get more accurate failure rate boundary values.
Israel has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world [27]. On December 20, 2020, the country took the lead in launching the world's first universal vaccination program for COVID-19. According to the official website of the Israeli Ministry of Health [28], as of March 2, 2020, the proportion of Israel receiving one dose of the vaccine was 51.67%, and the proportion of receiving two doses of the new crown vaccine was 37.53%. By early August 2021, about 62% of Israel's 9.3 million population had received at least one dose of the vaccine, and about 58% had completed two doses. Israel, despite reaching such a high vaccination rate, saw a new peak of cases in early September 2021. According to the World Health Organization, on September 1, 2021, Israel recorded more than 10,000 new cases per day. By the end of August 2021, the vaccination rate in Singapore had reached 80%, and since September 2021, the number of new cases in Singapore has increased significantly, and by the end of October, there were more than 5,000 new cases in a single day.
This article explores the impact of different vaccine failure rates on the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK, given a certain vaccination rates. Although many countries have achieved high vaccination rates, and even theoretically achieved rates of herd immunity, from the data alone, vaccination does not seem to have a significant inhibitory effect on the epidemic in these countries. The reason may be that the mutated virus is difficult to deal with, or the vaccine is not as effective as expected. In the next article, we will use data from severe cases to assess vaccine efficacy and protection. Vaccination rates can be increased through government policies, but if the protection rate of the vaccine itself is not high, increasing the vaccination rate will not help to fundamentally control the epidemic.
This study was funded by Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 11901027, 11871093), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation(2021M703426), Postgraduate Teaching Research and Quality Improvement Project of BUCEA (J2021010), BUCEA Post Graduate Innovation Project (2021098, 2021099). We thank all the individuals who generously shared their time and materials for this study.
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
N. M. Salleh, N. A. A. Salim, M. Jaafar, M. Z. Sulieman, A. Ebekozien, Fire safety management of public buildings: A systematic review of hospital buildings in Asia, Prop. Manage., 38 (2020), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-12-2019-0069 doi: 10.1108/PM-12-2019-0069
![]() |
[2] |
G. Spinardi, J. Baker, L. Bisby, Post construction fire safety regulation in England: shutting the door before the horse has bolted, Policy Pract. Health Safety, 17 (2019), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2019.1591040 doi: 10.1080/14773996.2019.1591040
![]() |
[3] |
M. K. Alao, Y. M. Yatim, W. Y. W. Mahmood, Fire safety management strategy in Nigeria public buildings, Jurnal Kejuruteraan, 33 (2021), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.17576/jkukm-2021-33(3)-24 doi: 10.17576/jkukm-2021-33(3)-24
![]() |
[4] |
C. M. Benson, S. Elsmore, Reducing fire risk in buildings: the role of fire safety expertise and governance in building and planning approval, J. Hous. Built Environ., 37 (2022), 927–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09870-9 doi: 10.1007/s10901-021-09870-9
![]() |
[5] | I. Y. Ebenehi, S. Mohamed, N. Sarpin, S. T. Wee, A. A. Adaji, Building users' appraisal of effective fire safety management for building facilities in Malaysian higher education institutions: A pilot study, Traektoria Nauki = Path Sci., 4 (2018), 2001–2010. |
[6] |
R. Roslan, S. Y. Said, Fire safety management system for heritage buildings in Malaysia. Environ.-Behav. Proc. J., 2 (2017), 221–226. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v2i6.961 doi: 10.21834/e-bpj.v2i6.961
![]() |
[7] | P. Mutinda, P. Karanja, P. Makhonge, Assessment of fire safety management and adequacy of the existing control measures in Kenya power; Nairobi region, J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 18 (2017), 63–96. |
[8] |
P. Agarwal, J. Tang, A. N. L. Narayanan, J. Zhuang, Big data and predictive analytics in fire risk using weather data, Risk Anal., 40 (2020), 1438–1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13480 doi: 10.1111/risa.13480
![]() |
[9] |
J. S. Kim, B. S. Kim, Analysis of fire-accident factors using big-data analysis method for construction areas, KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 22 (2018), 1535–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-0767-7 doi: 10.1007/s12205-017-0767-7
![]() |
[10] |
Y. Lu, Z. Zhao, X. Jiang, J. Wu, X. Fan, Dynamic fire risk indexes for stadiums from perspective of big data, China Safety Sci. J., 32 (2022), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.023 doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.023
![]() |
[11] |
W. Khalid, M. Burneo, L. Hvam, A framework for multiple fire investigation using big data and statistical analysis, J. Fail. Anal. Prev., 21 (2021), 890–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-021-01125-7 doi: 10.1007/s11668-021-01125-7
![]() |
[12] |
E. Park, S. Min, Standardization of fire factor for big data, J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig., 19 (2019), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2019.19.4.143 doi: 10.9798/KOSHAM.2019.19.4.143
![]() |
[13] | H. J. Joo, Y. J. Choi, C. Y. Ok, J. H. An, Determination of fire risk assessment indicators for building using big data, J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr., 22 (2022), 281–291. |
[14] | F. Zhang, J. Huang, Intelligent early warning system for ecological forest fire based on big data, Ekoloji, 28 (2019), 2033–2037. |
[15] |
X. Li, H. Liu, W. Wang, Y. Zheng, H. Lv, Z. Lv, Big data analysis of the internet of things in the digital twins of smart city based on deep learning, Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 128 (2021), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2021.10.006 doi: 10.1016/j.future.2021.10.006
![]() |
[16] | A. I. Voda, L. D. Radu, Artificial intelligence and the future of smart cities, BRAIN-Broad Res. Arti., 9 (2018), 110–127. |
[17] |
M. Z. Naser, Mechanistically informed machine learning and artificial intelligence in fire engineering and sciences, Fire Technol., 57 (2021), 2741–2784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-01069-8 doi: 10.1007/s10694-020-01069-8
![]() |
[18] |
V. Kodur, P. Kumar, M. M. Rafi, Fire hazard in buildings: review, assessment and strategies for improving fire safety, PSU Res. Rev., 4 (2020), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-12-2018-0033 doi: 10.1108/PRR-12-2018-0033
![]() |
[19] |
P. Agarwal, J. Tang, A. N. L. Narayanan, J. Zhuang, Big data and predictive analytics in fire risk using weather data, Risk Anal., 40 (2020), 1438–1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13480 doi: 10.1111/risa.13480
![]() |
[20] |
W. Jin, Y. Liu, Y. Jin, M. Jia, L. Xue, The construction of builder safety supervision system based on CPS, Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput., 2020 (2020), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8856831 doi: 10.1155/2020/8856831
![]() |
[21] |
G. Sun, S. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Gao, Research on the construction of intelligent fire protection virtual simulation teaching platform based on internet of things, Int. J. Inform. Educ. Technol., 11 (2021), 450–455. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.10.1549 doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.10.1549
![]() |
[22] | A. C. Chavez, High performance computing for big data in distributed systems, Distrib. Proc. Syst., 1 (2020), 10–17. |
[23] | S. Y. Ding, H. Yang, Discussion on the technology of fire risk forecast driven by big data, Fire Sci. Technol., 39 (2020), 1743. |
[24] |
S. Saponara, A. Elhanashi, A. Gagliardi, Real-time video fire/smoke detection based on CNN in antifire surveillance systems, J. Real-Time Image Proc., 18 (2021), 889–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11554-020-01044-0 doi: 10.1007/s11554-020-01044-0
![]() |
[25] |
X. Wu, Y. Park, A. Li, X. Huang, F. Xiao, A Usmani Smart detection of fire source in tunnel based on the numerical database and artificial intelligence, Fire Technol., 57 (2021), 657–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00985-z doi: 10.1007/s10694-020-00985-z
![]() |
[26] | W. B. Horng, J. W. Peng, C. Y. Chen, A new image-based real-time flame detection method using color analysis, in Proceedings. 2005 IEEE Networking, Sensing and Control, (2005), 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNSC.2005.1461169 |
1. | Zefang Song, Huafei Di, Instability analysis and regularization approximation to the forward/backward problems for fractional damped wave equations with random noise, 2023, 01689274, 10.1016/j.apnum.2022.12.017 | |
2. | Yue Pang, Xingchang Wang, Furong Wu, Global existence and blowup in infinite time for a fourth order wave equation with damping and logarithmic strain terms, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4439, 10.3934/dcdss.2021115 | |
3. | Quang-Minh Tran, Hong-Danh Pham, Global existence and blow-up results for a nonlinear model for a dynamic suspension bridge, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4521, 10.3934/dcdss.2021135 | |
4. | Huafei Di, Zefang Song, F. Rabiei, Initial and Boundary Value Problems for a Class of Nonlinear Metaparabolic Equations, 2021, 2021, 1687-9139, 1, 10.1155/2021/6668355 | |
5. | Nouri Boumaza, Billel Gheraibia, Global existence, nonexistence, and decay of solutions for a wave equation of p-Laplacian type with weak and p-Laplacian damping, nonlinear boundary delay and source terms, 2022, 129, 18758576, 577, 10.3233/ASY-211742 | |
6. | Chao Yang, Yanbing Yang, Long-time behavior for fourth-order wave equations with strain term and nonlinear weak damping term, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4643, 10.3934/dcdss.2021110 | |
7. | Yi Cheng, Ying Chu, A class of fourth-order hyperbolic equations with strongly damped and nonlinear logarithmic terms, 2021, 29, 2688-1594, 3867, 10.3934/era.2021066 | |
8. | Le Thi Mai Thanh, Le Thi Phuong Ngoc, Nguyen Huu Nhan, Nguyen Thanh Long, FINITE-TIME BLOW UP OF SOLUTIONS FOR A FOURTH-ORDER VISCOELASTIC WAVE EQUATION WITH DAMPING TERMS, 2023, 13, 2156-907X, 3558, 10.11948/20230162 | |
9. | Wen-jun Liu, Zhi-yu Tu, Equivalence between the internal observability and exponential decay for the Moore-Gibson-Thompson equation, 2024, 39, 1005-1031, 89, 10.1007/s11766-024-4133-5 |
Vaccine failure rates | Vaccine effective time period (days) |
0 | FOREVER |
0.001 | 1000 |
0.002 | 500 |
0.003 | 333 |
0.004 | 250 |
0.005 | 200 |
0.006 | 167 |
0.007 | 143 |
0.008 | 125 |
0.009 | 111 |
0.01 | 100 |
0.02 | 50 |
0.03 | 33 |
0.04 | 25 |
0.05 | 20 |
Vaccine failure rates | Vaccine effective time period (days) | Peak value | Peak time (days) |
0 | FOREVER | 17126 | 101 |
0.001 | 1000 | 17934 | 106 |
0.002 | 500 | 18887 | 113 |
0.003 | 333 | 20032 | 121 |
0.004 | 250 | 21443 | 130 |
0.005 | 200 | 23244 | 143 |
0.006 | 167 | 25658 | 160 |
0.007 | 143 | 29159 | 187 |
0.008 | 125 | 35046 | 239 |
0.009 | 111 | 49967 | 435 |
0.01 | 100 | 96669 | 634 |
0.02 | 50 | 924,980 | 445 |
0.03 | 33 | 1,481,000 | 383 |
0.04 | 25 | 1,823,700 | 355 |
0.05 | 20 | 2,050,800 | 339 |
30 days | 40 days | 50 days | 60 days | 70 days | |
ω=0.002 | 8337 | 10214 | 12079 | 13862 | 15476 |
ω=0.006 | 8366 | 10305 | 12298 | 14307 | 16276 |
ω=0.010 | 8393 | 10390 | 12502 | 14720 | 17020 |
failure rates | 0 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.015 | 0.019 | 0.02 | 0.021 |
Peak value | 8856 | 9452 | 10354 | 12125 | 38455 | 66507 | 101150 |
Peak time (days) | 54 | 62 | 75 | 110 | 979 | 956 | 892 |
Vaccination rate | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.015 | 0.02 | 0.025 |
Peak value | 23244 | 9452 | 7269 | 6370 | 5857 |
Peak time (days) | 143 | 62 | 42 | 34 | 29 |
Vaccine failure rates | Vaccine effective time period (days) |
0 | FOREVER |
0.001 | 1000 |
0.002 | 500 |
0.003 | 333 |
0.004 | 250 |
0.005 | 200 |
0.006 | 167 |
0.007 | 143 |
0.008 | 125 |
0.009 | 111 |
0.01 | 100 |
0.02 | 50 |
0.03 | 33 |
0.04 | 25 |
0.05 | 20 |
Vaccine failure rates | Vaccine effective time period (days) | Peak value | Peak time (days) |
0 | FOREVER | 17126 | 101 |
0.001 | 1000 | 17934 | 106 |
0.002 | 500 | 18887 | 113 |
0.003 | 333 | 20032 | 121 |
0.004 | 250 | 21443 | 130 |
0.005 | 200 | 23244 | 143 |
0.006 | 167 | 25658 | 160 |
0.007 | 143 | 29159 | 187 |
0.008 | 125 | 35046 | 239 |
0.009 | 111 | 49967 | 435 |
0.01 | 100 | 96669 | 634 |
0.02 | 50 | 924,980 | 445 |
0.03 | 33 | 1,481,000 | 383 |
0.04 | 25 | 1,823,700 | 355 |
0.05 | 20 | 2,050,800 | 339 |
30 days | 40 days | 50 days | 60 days | 70 days | |
ω=0.002 | 8337 | 10214 | 12079 | 13862 | 15476 |
ω=0.006 | 8366 | 10305 | 12298 | 14307 | 16276 |
ω=0.010 | 8393 | 10390 | 12502 | 14720 | 17020 |
failure rates | 0 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.015 | 0.019 | 0.02 | 0.021 |
Peak value | 8856 | 9452 | 10354 | 12125 | 38455 | 66507 | 101150 |
Peak time (days) | 54 | 62 | 75 | 110 | 979 | 956 | 892 |
Vaccination rate | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.015 | 0.02 | 0.025 |
Peak value | 23244 | 9452 | 7269 | 6370 | 5857 |
Peak time (days) | 143 | 62 | 42 | 34 | 29 |