A Solution to the Kermack and McKendrick Integro-Differential Equations

General Outline of the Solution

We begin by defining several quantities which describe the epidemic dynamics. These are: N_p, the total population of people who can become infected during the epidemic; S(t), the subpopulation that has not yet become infected; N(t), the subpopulation that is currently or has previously been infected; I(t), the infectiousness of individuals within N(t); and R(t), the total recovery of individuals within N(t). The relationships between these quantities are further clarified by noting that S(0) is the number of uninfected people in N_! at the epidemic start, S(∞) is the number of uninfected people at the end of the epidemic, I(0) is the number of infectious individuals at the epidemic start; and therefore, N_! = S(t) + N(t), N(t) = I(t) + R(t), and N(0) = I(0). We further assume that for our modelling purposes, N_! is a constant and that once infected, people cannot become reinfected.

We then write the following two relationships,

where K_T(t) is a function describing the rate of new infections and μ(t) is the recovery rate of the infected people. Equation 1 arises directly from the notion that the currently infectious subpopulation, I(t), is the sole cause of new infections. In a “systems” view, infections are expressly recognized as the driving force of the epidemic.

Equation 2 is easily solved to find an expression for I(t), which can be rewritten as, The righthand side of Equation 4 is the decaying step input of the initial infectious individuals, , multiplied by the response function, , to this input. Corroborating this simple systems view, we see that if there were no recovery (i.e., if μ(t) = 0 for all time), then as long as K_T(t) > 0, the number of infectious individuals would grow exponentially.

Herd Immunity

With Equation 4 in hand, we can now explore several accepted tenets of epidemiological modeling. One generally accepted tenet, the concept of herd immunity, requires the determination of the epidemic’s final size. To see if our model predicts herd immunity, we first use Equations 1 and 3 to determine the time history of the total infections, N(t); and find, We then note that iff the condition N(t) = S(0) can occur, S(∞) = 0 is possible; and herd immunity is not guaranteed.

By inspection of Equation 5, it is clear there are finite values of K_T(t) and μ(t), which allow N(t) to assume any finite value, including N(t) = S(0). Therefore, unless there are heretofore unknown or unstated physical restrictions on the range of values for K_T(t) and μ(t), it is plausible that S(∞) can be zero; and herd immunity is not guaranteed. This finding is provocative and suggests that we carefully examine the logic used to reach the conclusion that herd immunity, a sine qua non of conventional epidemiological modeling, does always exist.

The conventional approach to deriving an expression for the final size of an epidemic begins with the following summarized Kermack and McKendrick equations (Kröger M and Schlickeiser 2020),

where ρ(t) and µ(t) are the time varying versions of the parameters that Kermack and McKendrick define respectively as the “rate of infectivity” and “the rate of recovery”, and A_p is the area that encompasses the population.

The conventional final size derivation proceeds by dividing both sides of Equation 6 by S(t). But, within this early step hides a fundamental assumption. To divide Equation 6 by S(t), we must first assume that both S(t) and S(∞) are ≠ 0 for all time. Thus, the conventional demonstration that S(∞) ≠ 0, the essence of herd immunity, begins with the assumption that the conclusion is true.

Adherents of the analysis justify the assumption that S(t) and S(∞) are ≠ 0 by either explicitly or implicitly assuming and accepting that ρ(t) or its equivalent, is finite. Using the further assumption that ρ(t) and µ(t) are constants, and employing Equations 6 and 7, they then arrive at the following implicit expression for determining the final size (Brauer, et al 2008), where . When presented in these analyses, Equation 8 is also accompanied by the statement ρ(t) < ∞; and therefore S(∞) > 0. There are variations on this theme, but in all cases the conclusion that S(∞) > 0 rests on the assumption that ρ(t) < ∞.

The critical assumption, that ρ(t) < ∞, is supported in these analyses by making one or the other of two physical assertions. One assertion is that ρ(t) is the contact rate between the susceptible and infected populations (Brauer 2005) and therefore can never be infinite. In the second assertion, the quantity I(t)ρ(t) is referred to as the “force of infection” (Breda, et al, 2021, Diekmann, et al, 2021) which, by its very nature, is assumed to be finite.

However, a simple dimensional analysis of Equation 5 lays bare the historical controversy and contravenes the assertions that ρ(t) must remain finite. In Equation 6, the units of ρ(t) and I(t)ρ(t) must be: respectively. Therefore, based on their units and their definition, as S(t) approaches zero, because each new infection occurs in proportion to an ever-decreasing value of S(t), both ρ(t) and I(t)ρ(t) should be expected to become increasingly large and approach infinity. Beyond these dimensional problems, questions such as upper limits and functionality are simply unaddressed and unanswered in these analyses. The arguments that ρ(t) and I(t)ρ(t) must remain finite are, therefore, unconvincing.

Flatten the Curve

Despite the foregoing analysis, in typical analyses that use the SIR model, as a simplifying assumption, ρ(t), the rate of infectivity, is replaced in Equations 6 and 7 by the constant β. Importantly, the origins of both parameters ρ(t) and β have their roots in Kermack and McKendrick’s initial assumption that the population is well mixed. The term S(t)I(t) in Equation 6 quantifies the well mixed population; but since it is absurd to think that everyone in a population could possibly contact everyone else, Kermack and McKendrick introduced ρ(t) in an attempt to capture the transmissions occurring due to the actual level of interactions by stating that “…the chance of infection is proportional to the number of infected …, and to the number not yet infected…”; and ρ(t) is the time-based parameter of proportionality. The use of ρ(t) was intended to capture the dynamics of the disease transmission and the population interactions and this purpose is extended to the use of the constant β. In the literature describing the SIR model, β is thought of as proportional to and a proxy for the actual interactions.

However, simply multiplying S(t)I(t) by a parameter, here the constant β, is not the proper method to account for the actual number of interactions, because regardless of the value of ρ(t) or β, the use of the term S(t)I(t) in Equations 6 and 7 signifies that everyone is still in contact with everyone else. Lower values of β, then, merely represent less efficient transmission during those interactions. β is not a proxy for the level of population interactions; rather, it is a parameter describing the efficiency of transmission.

We highlight the commonplace misrepresentation of β as a proxy for the population interactions because it has led authors to attribute the SIR model phenomenon known as “flatten the curve” to reduced population interactions. Many modelers have shown that lower values of β in the SIR model project the peak in new infections to occur later (See, for example, Di Lauro, et al, 2021). Since they believe β to be a proxy for the population behavior, they then propose that lower numbers of population interactions will lead to a later epidemic peak. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the belief in this relationship led to many public and political discussions about whether it was more beneficial to shutdown economies and delay the end of the epidemic or to allow the epidemic to peak quickly and end sooner.

Socio-tragically, the “flatten the curve” discussion is based on the incorrect interpretation of the role that β plays in the SIR model. The proper interpretation of a lower β is that this represents less efficient disease transmission. That the peak is pushed out in time with less efficient transmission is not surprising, but this should not be confounded with lowering the number of population interactions. Contrary to popular belief, as we show in this manuscript, when population interactions are properly considered, lower numbers of interactions significantly shorten the time of the epidemic.

Coincidence of the Peaks of Infections and New Infections

While the posited phenomena of herd immunity and “flatten the curve” are well known characteristics of the SIR models, a lesser known, but equally important phenomenon is that the SIR model with constant coefficients predicts that the peak in the new cases, , will occur earlier than the peak in infections, I(t). This can be seen by substituting the constants β and γ for ρ(t) and µ(t), respectively, in Equations 6 and 7. Then, by first differentiating Equation 6 and setting the quantity equal to zero, it is clear that is negative when ; indicating that the SIR model projects that the daily number of new infections will have already peaked before the only source of new cases, the infections themselves, has peaked.

We created Equation 1 from the simple premise that all new infections are caused by, and directly flow from existing infections; that is, apart from an original inoculum, no new infections are introduced from outside the population under consideration. This assertion applies to all models; and, therefore, it should be expected that the projected course of new infections in every model will parallel the course of the infections and peak when the infections peak. Clearly, if K_T(t) is a constant in Equation 1, in an epidemic described by that equation, the peak in new cases coincides with the peak in infections. In contrast, this is never the case in SIR models.

We have argued above, that in the SIR model with constant coefficients, β should only characterize the efficiency of disease transmission. Therefore, one might suspect that the reason new cases peak before the peak in infections in the SIR model is that a hidden phenomenon exists within the SIR model. As we lay out in this manuscript, this hidden phenomenon is equivalent to an assumption of quite implausible population behaviors which have been obscured by the SIR model structure.

Our Approach

In this manuscript, we use the full Kermack and McKendrick integro-differential equations and an appropriate definition of the population interactions to develop a complete solution, which we refer to as the KMES (Kermack and McKendrick Equation Solution). We validate the KMES by accurately projecting data obtained from the Covid-19 pandemic. Building on this, we derive many useful, new analytical formulas for characterizing and managing an epidemic. Included in these are expressions for the viral load and for both N(t) and N(∞).

Lastly, the availability of a closed form solution enables us to closely examine the assumptions behind the SIR epidemiological compartmental models. In that examination, we find implicit, implausible assumptions, which have not been previously appreciated. This last exercise also demonstrates that the conventional imagery of people travelling irreversibly from one compartment to the next, even under the assumption of perfect immunity in recovery, requires significant adaptation.

Definition of terms

Similar to SIR models, the KMES only requires the specification of two parameters: one describing disease dynamics and a second describing the dynamics of population interactions. In the KMES, the disease dynamics are described by K_T(t), the rate at which the infectious people cause new infections; while the population dynamics are described by P_c(t), the number of infectable contacts between people within the entire population. We define P_c(t) with the expression: where P_cr(t) is the rate of infectious contact for the entire population. P_c(t) is understood to be the instantaneous average of the contacts within the population. Infectious contacts can be fractions of a whole between two contacts; in other words, there is an amplitude associated with every contact and these weighted contacts average to P_c(t) for the population.

To begin the derivation of the KMES, we first define I(t) and R(t) more precisely. In the conventional literature I(t) is conceptualized as the sub-population that is currently able to advance the epidemic by infecting previously uninfected people; and R(t) is thought to represent people who have been infected, but because they have recovered, can no longer infect anyone. As the epidemic progresses, the members of the population I(t) move in a one way sense into the population, R(t).

To develop the KMES, we defined I(t) as the infectiousness of the population N(t) where, by “infectiousness”, we mean the ability to infect others. We define R(t) as the portion of N(t) that is unable to infect others and is therefore “not infectious”. In the following three thought experiments, we illustrate how our definitions of I(t) and R(t) expand on conventional notions.

In the first thought experiment, we imagine a person with an active infection who has no contacts at all or only with persons who cannot become infected. This person is certainly a member of the population N(t); but since they cannot infect anyone, they cannot advance the epidemic; and, therefore, cannot be defined as infectious. In our approach, they would be included in R(t). This thought experiment explains why I(t) and R(t) should be dependent upon P_c(t).

In a second thought experiment, imagine that a person has just infected a new person. In this case, the infecting person cannot reinfect that newly infected person nor can the newly infected person infect their infector. For the purposes of our model, we assume that P_c(t), does not change quickly when compared to the rate that people become infected. This means that, mathematically, the infecting people durably remain in infectious contact with the people they have infected. Therefore, according to our definition, the infectiousness of the infecting people diminishes with each infection they cause; and, in symmetry, their recovery, the degree to which they are unable to infect others, increases.

In the third thought experiment, we recognize that during the course of an infection, the quantity and quality of the infectious agent within any infected person, the so-called “viral load”, will rise and fall with time. The ability of a person to infect susceptible people will also vary in synchrony, therefore, we postulate that the value of the infectiousness will approximately track the variation in viral load. It is easy to see that persons whose infection has passed the maximum viral load, will, in a static social situation, become increasingly less infectious; and, in a sense, partially recovered. Therefore, mathematically, infected persons, while clearly no longer susceptible, should be considered to be a part of both subpopulations I(t) and R(t).

Our intent in presenting these three examples is to provide intuitive insight into the characteristics we should expect for the variables I(t) and R(t) within the KMES. Specifically, the key characteristic is that I(t) is a measure of infectiousness which depends upon a person’s ability and, importantly, opportunity to infect others. Adopting this definition of I(t) leads inexorably to the conclusion that an individual will necessarily sometimes be a member of both the I(t) and R(t) subpopulations.

Kermack and McKendrick’s model structure

Kermack and McKendrick (1927) derived their integro-differential equations by imagining N(t) to be the sum of incremental subpopulations of people who had been infected at the time t − θ; where θ was a dummy variable for time used to indicate the time since infection of each subpopulation. The time history of the epidemic was then imagined as a square t by t array with every successive row representing an increment of time, Δt, and each column representing an increment of θ. We designate each increment of θ as Δt since θ has the units of time.

The progress of each θ group in Kermack and McKendrick’s analysis was then tracked through time diagonally across the array with each θ group starting at time t − θ and progressing diagonally thereafter. The array is square because θ ≤ t; and Δθ = Δt. Their equations were then developed by initially summing over θ and then taking the limit as Δθ and Δt → 0. A full rendition of the arrays relevant to their equations is in Supplement 6. A close review of these arrays may be helpful for the reader to fully understand the relationship between time and θ.

To derive the solution to Kermack and McKendrick’s equation, we initially adopt their convention using θ and use the following notation. First, unless otherwise specified, all dependent variables and parameters are assumed to be both dependent on time, designated as t, and θ, defined as the time since infection. Examples of notation used to show this explicitly are I(t, θ) or Ψ(t, θ). If a variable (not a parameter) is designated as a function of time alone, then it is to be understood that the variable has been integrated over all θ. For instance, . In contrast to the variables, however, if a parameter is designated as solely a function of time or θ alone, then the parameter is considered to be constant over the alternate temporal dimension; over either θ or time respectively. The dependent variables used in this manuscript are S, I, N, R; and the parameters are: K_T, P_c, φ, φ_r, ρ, ψ, µ, β, P_cr, and γ.

We also note that Kermack and McKendrick, in their manuscript, showed the parameters, φ, ψ, and β, at times as solely dependent on either θ or t, which is sometimes confusing. For clarity, we choose to initially show these parameters as dependent on both θ and t (i.e., we write them as φ(t, θ), ψ(t, θ), and β(t, θ)) and then let the analysis determine whether they are solely dependent on θ, t, or both. As the analysis proceeds, the importance of this clarification will become apparent.

With the prior concepts of K_T(t), P_c(t), I(t) and R(t) in mind, we write the Kermack and McKendrick integro-differential equations in terms of time and θ:

where .

Kermack and McKendrick (1927, p. 703) defined φ(t, θ) as “the rate of infectivity at age θ”, and Ψ(t, θ) as “the rate of removal” (page 703) of the infected population to the recovered population. A₃ is the area that contains the population and, as previously defined, θ is the time since infection of any member of the population N(t).

The integration limits in the integral in the definition of B(t, θ) require some additional explanatory details. In Kermack and McKendrick’s development of their equations, they assumed that the B term, the infectiousness of each θ group at time, t, was only a function of θ because they assumed that infectiousness only represented the progress of the infections within each θ group. They chose, therefore, to assume that every θ group would proceed along identical time paths from the time since infection, θ. Consequently, the integration limits in the B term were chosen to only depend upon the time since infection (i.e., 0 to θ), regardless of the actual interval. They should have been more precise in their notation. The appropriate limits are t − θ and t because this is the actual time period associated with each θ group.

It was the recognition of these integration limits that enabled the solution which is demonstrated later in this section. We surmise that this subtle imprecision in Kermack and McKendrick’s notation; and the misinterpretation of the units of the parameters are likely the reasons that subsequent authors have not successfully found a pathway to a solution to the integro-differential equations.

Derivation of the KMES

Our goal is to find a solution to Equations 10-13 in terms of t, K_T(t) and P_c(t). To develop this solution, we first convert Equations 10-13 into equations dependent on the variable t alone using K_T(t) and the parameter µ(t). We then solve these new equations, express the solution in terms of K_T(t) and P_c(t); and use the resulting equations to develop expressions for B(t, θ), φ(t, θ), and Ψ(t, θ) to complete the solution. Lastly, we make the simplifying assumption that the epidemic parameters, K_T(t) and P_c(t) are constants, which leads to a simple set of intuitive expressions describing the epidemic dynamics.

We begin by using the definition of N(t) as the total number of people that have been infected. Therefore: and, We have already defined K_T(t) in Equation 1 as the rate of new infections caused by I(t), therefore, Equation 16 describes a direct relationship between the cause of the epidemic, namely, infections, I(t), and the change in the susceptible population; therefore, the units of K_T(t) must

If we divide Equation 10 by Equation 11, and combine with Equation 16, we can express K_T(t) in terms of Kermack and McKendrick’s variables as the negative of the change in the susceptible population per infectiousness, I(t): Likewise, by dividing Equation 12 by Equation 11 we can also define the parameter, µ(t), as the change in the recoveries per infectiousness, I(t): We note here that, as defined, µ(t), is only a function of time, meaning that for all values of θ at a given time, t, µ(t) has the same value. The same is true for the parameter K_T(t).

We then rewrite Equations 10-13 in the following form as functions of time,

where N(t) = I(t) + R(t). We now use Equations 10 and 11 along with Equations 19 and 20 to find a relationship between µ(t) and Ψ(t, θ); and then a relationship between K_T(t) and φ(t, θ).

Equation 20, is, of course, identical to Equation 2, and its solution is therefore Equation 3 from the introduction, We now note that , since the value of for all θ > 0. Then, since we know the relationship between and I(t) from Equation 16, we can utilize the exponential forms of B(t, θ) and B(t, t), substitute Equations 3 and 16 into Equation 11, keeping in mind that dθ = dt, and find the following relationship, If we then divide Equation 23 by Equation 3, we find, Since the integral, , can be evaluated by using the relationship, , Equation 24 is satisfied if Ψ(t, θ) = μ(t), which is the first sought after relationship.

The second relationship, between K_T(t) and φ(t, θ), can be found by substituting Equations 3 and 16 into Equation 10, using the exponential forms of B(t, θ) and B(t, t), and obtaining the following, By using the relationship, Ψ(t, θ) = μ(t); dividing Equation 25 by Equation 3 and by K_T(t), we find the following expression, We then find that, as before, since , Equation 26 can be satisfied if , which is the second sought after relationship.

We now need to express µ(t) (and, therefore, Ψ(t, θ)) in terms of the epidemic parameters, K_T(t) and P_c(t). We begin by first dividing Equation 16 by N(t), integrating, and exponentiating to arrive at the following expression, The remaining task is to find a relationship between in terms of the parameters of the epidemic, K_T(t) and P_c(t) which we will then use to find the form of µ(t).

To this end, we continue the analysis by noting that every person within both N(t) and I(t) contacts P_c(t) people in each period Δt. Beginning at t = 0, then, according to Equation 1, a total of K_T(0)I(0)Δt people within the I(0)P_c(0) group becomes infected during the time Δt; and the number of non-infected people within the I(0)P_c(0) group is changed to, I(0)P_c(0) −K_T(0)I(0)Δt + I(0)ΔP_cni(0); where P_cni(t) is the number of people within P_c(t) who are still susceptible. We add the term I(0)ΔP_cni(0) to account for any additional susceptible people that the I(t) group may contact infectiously during the time interval Δt. This also means that, per potentially infectious contact, I(0)P_c(0), the infectiousness of the people within N(0), has been changed by the factor, is the portion of P_c(0) the contacting infected people can no longer infect and is the number of new contacts that can be infected.

After a time Δt, the infectiousness, I(Δt), in the affected population N(Δt) is, therefore, per contact, Dividing both sides by N(Δt), we obtain a difference equation for the ratio of the infectiousness, I(Δt), to the total of the ever infected, N(Δt), population, In the next time step, another K_T(Δt)ΔtI(Δt) people within the group P_c(Δt) become infected and, therefore, the infectiousness within N(2Δt) is changed by an additional factor, . This is expressed mathematically as, The process repeats itself in each period Δt; and therefore, we can write the recursion formula, As we indicated in the second thought experiment, we now make the simplifying assumption that a change, ΔP_cni(t), to P_cni(t) will occur much more slowly than the creation of new infections, which means that ΔP_cni(nΔt) ≪ K_T(nΔt)Δt. Therefore, in Equation 31, we can neglect the ΔP_cni(nΔt) terms. The situation where ΔP_cni(nΔt) is plausibly growing as fast as K_T(nΔt)Δt corresponds to an outbreak from the main epidemic. This is explored in more detail in Supplement 5.1.

If we neglect the ΔP_cni(nΔt) terms in Equation 31; and, since by definition, nΔt = t, as n → ∞, Δt → 0, Equation 31 becomes, where ; and is the fraction of N(t) that is infected at t = 0. Equation 32 is the sought for relationship for , in terms of K_T(t) and P_c(t).

Substituting Equation 32 into Equation 27, we now have the following expression for and, by multiplying Equations 32 and 33, we obtain an expression for I(t), From the definition of N(t) and using Equations 33 and 34 we find the expression for If we substitute Equations 33 to 35 into Equations 19 through 22, we find that they are a solution if , which is the sought after expression for µ(t).

To complete the solution to Kermack and McKendrick’s integro-differential equations, we use the expression for µ(t) to write the forms of B(t, t), B(t, θ), φ(t, θ), and Ψ(t, θ) in terms of K_T(t) and P_c(t),

Equations 33 through 39 form a complete solution to Equations 10 through 13. We refer to this solution as the KMES (Kermack and McKendrick Equation Solution) We also note that in Equations 38 and 39, Ψ(t, θ) and φ(t, θ) are only functions of time; and we therefore continue this manuscript with only the use of Ψ(t) and φ(t). Lastly, with no loss of generality, since S(t) = N_! − N(t), rather than communicate the progress of the epidemic in terms of susceptibles, S(t), we will continue to express it in terms of the total cases, N(t), as in Equation 33.

Simplified expressions

As we indicated at the beginning of the KMES derivation, the complex solution in Equations 33 through 39 can be written in simplified, more intuitive forms. The first of these is what we term the “Step Response” form, which is derived by using Equation 37 to rewrite Equations 33 through 35 as,

Since B(t, t) is the time varying infectiousness input of the original infected group, I(0), the exponential expressions, , are the step response functions to this input. Equation 40 also shows that if there were no recovery, that is, if B(t, t)I(0) = 1, then the epidemic would proceed exponentially until the entire population was infected, an intuitive and sensible result.

In a final simplification of the solution, as an approximation, if we assume that both K_T(t) and P_c(t) are constant for a period in Equations 33 through 35 and if F_i(0) = 1, we arrive at simplified statements for N(t), I(t), and R(t),

Herd Immunity

If K_T truly is a function of the disease alone, it is likely to be a constant, at least in the initial stages of an epidemic. Using this inferred property, and assuming the population does not change its behavior (i.e., P_c is a constant) during the pandemic, we find the following expression for the final size, N(∞) as t → ∞, using Equation 43, From Equation 46, we can see that, if P_c is large enough, it is possible for N(∞) to equal S(0) and, therefore, herd immunity is not guaranteed.

The time it would take for N(∞) = S(0) is given by the following expression, and the criteria that must be true for the entire population to become infected is, Equations 46 through 48 enable the estimation of the level of social interaction that will cause the total population to be infected and they demonstrate very directly that the existence of herd immunity is not an inherent property of the Kermack and McKendrick model.

Basic and Effective Reproduction Number, R0 and REff

If we divide K_T by Ψ(t) we find an expression for the Effective Reproduction Number (R_Eff): A function of both the disease and the behavior of the population, the value of R_Eff marks two key epidemic points. First, the peak in the number of new infections occurs and the epidemic begins to decline when R_Eff = 1. Second, when t = 0, R_Eff = R₀ = P_c = Basic Reproduction Number.

Time to Peak New Infections

By setting R_Eff = 1 in Equation 49, we obtain the following expression for the time when the decline in new cases, begins: Likewise, if we differentiate both sides of Equation 43 twice, we can obtain an identical expression for the time when is a maximum, where t_max = the time to the peak of new infections. As it should, the time of the peak in new cases coincides with the start of the decline of infections.

Equation 51 demonstrates the relationship between the strength of social intervention measures, P_Y, and the time to the peak of new infections. When social interventions are stronger (smaller P_Y), the time to the peak will always be shorter.

Measuring the Control of an Epidemic

A key purpose in developing a closed form model is to use expressions such as Equations 46 to 51 to determine whether control measures in place are adequately managing the epidemic.

Here we develop tools from the KMES for assessing the condition of the epidemic in real time to enable adjustments to control measures.

First, by differentiating both sides of Equation 33, dividing both sides by N(t), rearranging the terms, and then taking the natural log of both sides, we obtain the following useful expression, We label this the “Rate of Change Operator” (RCO) because it is a measure of the rate of change of N(t), per person within N(t). The RCO is a convenient expression to use in evaluating the current epidemic conditions because it only requires knowledge of the recent data on total number of cases, N(t), and daily new cases, , and as we show later, estimates of both K_T and P_c can be made from the value of the RCO.

Another important expression, derived by differentiating Equation 43 twice, is the rate of acceleration of the epidemic: Equation 53, with its four equivalent expressions, demonstrates the power that an authentic model provides. The leftmost expression allows us to compare the acceleration—the potential to change the rate of new infections—at any stage of the epidemic for any two countries, even those with different population densities, using only the daily case rate and the defining constants, K_T’ and P_c.

Equation 53 is also an immediate determinant of whether the control measures in place, represented by P, are effective enough. If the value of the term, , in the third equality is positive, then the control measures are not strong enough. Conversely, when this term is negative, the epidemic is being brought under control.

The maximum value of P_c that will begin to bring down the new cases per day is the value that turns the acceleration in Equation 53 negative. If we set the left-hand side of Equation 53 to zero, use the third expression from the left in Equation 53 and solve for P_c, we arrive at the defining relationship for this critical objective of epidemic management: Since the value of RCO(t) can be easily determined every day by calculating during the epidemic and the value of K_T can be determined using the technique illustrated in Section 3, the maximum allowable value of P_c needed to reduce the number of daily cases can always be determined. This value of P_c is the maximum level of infectable social contact allowable if we want the number of new daily cases to continue decreasing. Also, as explained in Supplement 5.1, if the slope of the RCO curve is determined from the graphical analysis to be greater than zero, then an outbreak has occurred and immediate reductions in social interactions are needed.

If we define a desired target for , the number of new cases per day, at a future time, t + t_target, we can derive a new quantity, the desired fraction of the current new cases, D_tf, as: Using the derivative of Equation 43, we arrive at the following expression: If t ≫ t_target, then and we obtain the following equation from the remaining terms: Equation 57 quantitates the number of days, t_%@A\8%, that a level of social containment, P_c, must be imposed to achieve a fraction of daily cases, D_%;, compared to the current level. In Supplement 5, using quantitative examples, we explain the use of Equations 53 through 57 to characterize and control an epidemic.

Projecting Country Data

If we assume that both K_T and P_c are at least piece-wise constant for substantial periods of time, we see that Equation 52 is a linear equation in time. By applying Equation 52 to data (Roser, et al. 2021) from six different countries during the initial stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, we obtained the curves in Figure 1. As can be seen in the figure, before and shortly after the date (indicated by the arrows in the figures) of the imposition of containment actions in the six countries, these RCO curves became straight lines. This is a strong indication that it is reasonable to assume that K_T and P_c were approximately constants both before and after the imposition of the containment actions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Rate of change operator (RCO) curves for COVID-19 cases in various countries.

An epidemic can be described by a piecewise linear model using the RCO (Equation 52). A short segment of orange dots in each graph is a linear fit to the corresponding points (blue/white circles) in the observed data. The slopes and initial points of these dotted-line segments are the values of K₁ and K₂ respectively which are tabulated in Table1. In some countries, RCO curves changed markedly soon after the date containment measures were implemented (arrows): A) South Korea, February 21; (the oval highlights a departure of the observed data from the RCO slope, indicating failures in, or relaxations of, social distancing); B) USA, March 16; C) Sweden did not implement any specific containment measures, so the model calibration was begun on April 1, the date when the slope of the RCO curve first became steady. D) Italy, March 8; E) Spain, March 14; F) New Zealand, March 25. All dates are in 2020.

To project the course of the epidemic in the individual countries, we used a small portion of the data immediately after the imposition of the containment measures to determine the values of ln(F_i(0)K_T) and by fitting Equation 52 to short, early portions of the straight segments of the RCO time series. These early portions comprised nine data points each and Table 1 displays the values derived for each country.

Using these values in Equation 43, we then predicted the course of daily total cases (Figure 2) for the six countries. These predictions matched the actual time series of the daily total cases with an R² > 0.97 in each of the six countries for the 45 days following the date containment measures were introduced. We then used the derivative of Equation 43 to plot the predicted time series of the daily new cases in Figure 3 for the six countries for the same 45 days.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Complete KMES model predictions for daily total case counts.

A) South Korea; B) USA; C) Sweden; D) Italy; E) Spain; and F) New Zealand. Dots are daily data points observed from (white-center and all blue) or calculated (orange) for each country. The KMES model was calibrated using data from the date ranges listed in Table 1 (white-center blue dots). R² > 0.97 for the model fit for all countries for the 45 days after the containment measures were implemented: South Korea, February 21-April 4; USA, March 16-April 30; Italy, March 8–April 22; Spain, March 14-April 28; New Zealand, March 25-May 9. Sweden did not implement any specific containment measures, so the dates used were March 23- May 7. The deviation of the model from the data in the USA, panel (B), after April is elucidated in Supplement 5. All dates are in 2020.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Complete KMES model predictions for number of new daily cases.

A) South Korea, R² = 0.86; B) USA, R² = 0.83; C) Sweden, R² = 0.29; D) Italy, R² = 0.69; E) Spain, R² = 0.65; and F) New Zealand, R² = 0.90. The orange dotted line is the model in all panels. The all-blue and white-center blue dots are data points, daily observations from each country. The white-center blue points are used to determine model parameters. R² values are between the model and the data, across countries for the 45 days after containment measures were instituted.

These predictions have an R² range of 0.29 to 0.90; and as seen in the figure; the predicted peak of new cases was close to the observed peak for all countries.

It is important to emphasize that the predictions in Figures 2 and 3 are not fits to the full-length of the data shown. Rather, the two constants, ln(F_i(0)K_T) and ^*8 were estimated using only a short, linear, nine-point portion of the epidemic data starting between 7 to 14 days after the imposition of containment measures. These constants were then used to project the data for the days after the nine points.

K_T(t) as a Parameter of the Disease

In an additional demonstration of the veracity of the KMES, we tested the assumption that, in the initial portion of the epidemic, K_T(t) is a constant and a property of the disease, and therefore, should be the same for each country. Equation 58, S2-5, derived in Supplement 2, shows that the model parameters, expressed in a purposefully constructed function, Where should be linearly proportional to time with a constant of proportionality or slope equal to −K_T. As illustrated in Figure 4, the fit of Equation 58, using the population density data from Table 2, has an R² = 0.956 and a slope of −0.26 (the slope is equal to −K_T). This excellent correlation confirms that K_T can confidently be assumed to be the same for all countries, is a constant in the initial stage of the epidemic, and is likely, a property of the disease.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Verification that K_T is the same for all countries.

The data from Table 2 is plotted using Equation 58 and A_H = 0.48 km². Each data point corresponds to a different country. The value of K_T is the negative of the slope of the line, and K_T is closely approximated everywhere by K_T ≈ 0.26

Viral Load

The step response structure of the KMES suggests that it should also contain an expression for the viral load of the disease. Equation 37 provides a starting point because it describes the evolution of the infectiousness of the initially infected population. If we set P_c and I(0) = 1 in Equation 37, meaning that if there was only one initial infection and we assume that this infected person contacted, on average, only one person during the epidemic, and assume for this case, that K_T(t) is a constant, we obtain an expression for the infectiousness of the initially infected person, However, as we have noted, infectiousness does not equate to the actual viral load.

Rather, it is a measure of the ability to infect and is dependent on the portion of contacts that remain infectable as well as the viral load. Since the available portion of infectable people in P_c is equal to R_Eff, we can extract the viral load from the infectiousness by dividing B(t, t) by R_Eff (dividing Equation 59 by Equation 49), which results in the following expression (keeping P_c = 1), When we set K_T= 0.26, as derived from Figure 4, we obtain the plot in Figure 5.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Representation of the average viral load of an infected person in the Covid 19 pandemic.

The plot was generated using the value K_T = 0.26 in Equation 60

The interpretation of Equation 60 and its graphical representation in Figure 5 require careful consideration. First, the initially infectious person in the epidemic did not become infected at t = 0. Therefore, time in Equation 60 and in Figure 5 must be allowed to be negative at the beginning of the infection. Second, Equation 60, as seen graphically in Figure 5, has the expected characteristics of a viral load; that is, it rises quickly, reaches a maximum, and then declines at a slower exponential pace.

As a measure of the veracity of the curve in Figure 5, we found that it has the same overall shape and dynamic change in load from peak to 15 days after the peak as the estimated average viral loads estimated by direct measurements of individual Covid-19 patients with Covid-19 (Challenger et al 2021 and Jones et al 2022). In these references, using patient data, Challenger et al (2021) found that the base 10 exponential decline rate of the viral load was -0.22 with a credible interval between -0.26 and -0.17 whereas Jones et al (2022) found a credible interval of the base 10 exponential decline of -0.17 to -0.16. A least squares base 10 exponential curve fit to the data in Figure 5 between day 0 and day 15 has a rate of decline of -0.19 with an R² value of 0.99. This result is another strong indication of the veracity of the KMES and that K_T is a parameter of the disease.

Correlation with Independently Measured Mobility Data

A fourth illustration of veracity arises from the ability to correlate independently sourced Google mobility data (Google 2020) to the RCO. Mobility data, available from Google, are a measure of the difference between the amount of time people stayed at home (the Residential Mobility Measure or RMM) during the period modelled and a baseline measured for 5 weeks starting January 3, 2020. As explained in Supplement 2, and based on the expression for the RCO (Equation 52), if the KMES is correct, then the integral of this mobility data should correlate linearly with the measured RCO. Figure 6 shows that, as the KMES predicts, for each country considered, the integral of the RMM and the RCO are linearly correlated to a high degree.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6. Correlations between the daily value of the rate of change operator (RCO) and the integral of the Google Residential Mobility Measure (RMM) (Google 2020).

A) South Korea (date range, February 23 to April 23); B) USA (March 25 to May 31); C) Sweden (March 5 to May 5); D) Italy (March 25 to May 31); E) Spain (March 25 to May 31); and F) New Zealand (March 21 to April 22). All dates are in 2020.

Why φ should not be approximated as a constant

The argument against approximating φ as a constant originates with a key statement put forth early in the derivation of Kermack and McKendrick’s integro-differential equations. On page 703 Kermack and McKendrick state (1927), “Now v(t) denotes the number of persons in unit area who become infected at the interval t, and this must be equal to where x(t) denotes the people per unit area still unaffected (the density of the susceptibles), and φ(θ) is the rate of infectivity at age θ.” In equation form, using our notation of φ(t, θ), this statement reads, Later in their manuscript, Kermack and McKendrick used Equation 65 as the basis for deriving Equations 60 and 61 by assuming that φ(t, θ) equals the constant .

Although Kermack and McKendrick labeled φ(t, θ) as a “rate”; a proper balancing of the dimensions in Equation 65 demonstrates that φ(t, θ) cannot merely be a rate with the units of time^-1. Because v(t, θ) and v(t) have the same units, , and X(t) has the units of , we must conclude that φ(t, θ) has the units of . Hence, from the description given, it is clear that φ(t, θ) should be defined in the following form using the actual rate, where φ_r(t, θ) is a rate of new infections. Using Equation 66, Equation 65 can now be rewritten as, In an epidemic, as the number of total infections increases, the density of the susceptibles, x(t), is an ever-decreasing quantity; and therefore, from Equation 66 we can see that φ(t, θ) cannot itself be considered a constant as the epidemic progresses; especially as the affected population grows very large. Rather, the quantity, φ_r(t, θ) (which is equivalent to K_T(t)) is a better choice to be considered a constant when seeking to simplify the equations without losing their essence.

Other authors too, have misinterpreted and misused φ(t, θ). For example, in Hethcote (2000, pg 602), the term, is derived using the argument that “If β is the average number of adequate contacts (i.e., contacts sufficient for transmission) of a person per unit time, then is the number of new cases per unit time due to S(t) = N_ps(t) susceptibles.” Notable in the statement is that β is defined as, “…the average number of adequate contacts (i.e., contacts sufficient for transmission) of a person per unit time …”. Because β is defined as the average number of adequate contacts per unit time, and per person, this statement also implies that β is not merely a contact rate with the units of . Since Heathcote goes on to imply that the “person” is a susceptible, β must have the units and the conclusions that immediately follow.

Early in an epidemic, when S(t) ≈ N₃, we see that φ(t, θ) ≈ φ_r(t, θ) = K_T(t). Therefore, φ(t, θ) can only be approximated as a constant early in an epidemic and if K_T(t) can be approximated as a constant at that point.

Why Ψ should not be approximated as a constant

The time early in an epidemic, when S(t) ≈ N₃, also illustrates why Ψ should not be approximated as the constant γ in the SIR formulation. When S(t) ≈ N₃, Equations 60 through 63 become,

Since peaks are observed in epidemics even when S(t) ≈ N₃ and β = φ(t, θ) ≈ K_T(t) early in an epidemic; and, as explained earlier, K_T is a parameter of the disease which is likely to be a constant early on, inspection of Equation 69 makes it immediately clear that this set of equations will not adequately model epidemics. Equation 69 predicts a continual exponential increase in I(t) at a constant rate of β − γ if β > γ. Therefore, in contradiction to observed phenomenon, Equation 69 predicts a peak will never occur while S(t) ≈ N₃. Since β can be approximated as a constant under these conditions, we are forced to conclude that Ψ cannot be adequately modelled as a constant while S(t) ≈ N₃. This conclusion is supported by Equation 38 which shows that ψ(t), and therefore γ, cannot be a constant because the term, decays exponentially with time.

From the preceding observations and since we have the KMES, we conclude that all SIR constructs are inappropriate and unnecessary approximations. In Supplement 3, we support this conclusion by detailing the mathematically implausible assumptions that underlie the SIR approximations and make the case that these assumptions are not even qualitatively correct. We also analyze the inherent flaws within the SIR formulation that led to the erroneous “flatten-the- curve” projection by explicitly demonstrating that the flatten-the-curve projection illustrated throughout the literature (see, for example, Di Lauro et al 2021) is caused by hidden, inherent and implausible assumptions in the SIR models about both the populace and the disease.