4.6 Article

Effects of Vaccination Efficacy on Wealth Distribution in Kinetic Epidemic Models

期刊

ENTROPY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e24020216

关键词

wealth distribution; kinetic models; wealth inequalities; compartmental epidemic modelling; vaccination campaign; COVID-19

资金

  1. Ministero dell'Universita e della Ricerca [2020JLWP23 PRIN2020]
  2. Universita di Ferrara [FIR2021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the impact of vaccination campaigns on economic improvement during the COVID-19 pandemic. It evaluates the economic trends and wealth distribution using mathematical models, highlighting the positive effects of vaccination in reducing economic inequalities in society.
The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the close link between economics and health in the context of emergency management. A widespread vaccination campaign is considered the main tool to contain the economic consequences. This paper will focus, at the level of wealth distribution modeling, on the economic improvements induced by the vaccination campaign in terms of its effectiveness rate. The economic trend during the pandemic is evaluated, resorting to a mathematical model joining a classical compartmental model including vaccinated individuals with a kinetic model of wealth distribution based on binary wealth exchanges. The interplay between wealth exchanges and the progress of the infectious disease is realized by assuming, on the one hand, that individuals in different compartments act differently in the economic process and, on the other hand, that the epidemic affects risk in economic transactions. Using the mathematical tools of kinetic theory, it is possible to identify the equilibrium states of the system and the formation of inequalities due to the pandemic in the wealth distribution of the population. Numerical experiments highlight the importance of the vaccination campaign and its positive effects in reducing economic inequalities in the multi-agent society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据