In this work, we have utilized a relatively simple model for disease dynamics in an effort to maximize interpretability. Such simplification inevitably comes with a cost, and several of our assumptions can be critiqued as unrealistic. Perhaps foremost is the assumption of continuous movement. While continuous movement might be appropriate for very large populations with frequent, relatively small migrations between them, when any of these three components is not present, we would expect deviation from these predictions. Future work could explore the importance of discrete movement regimes on these patterns. Likewise, in this work we omit strain mutation and recombination \cite{Louren_o_2015} (yet the latter is included in the original framework of \citet{Gupta_1998}). The generation of novel strains is likely important to the global persistence of diseases in humans \cite{Antia_2003} and animals  \cite{Tompkins2015}. Finally, in representing movement by adding a proportion of the origin population to the destination, we introduce an assumption that the two populations in question are of approximately the same size. In a metapopulation where populations vary widely in size, the proportion leaving one population would not correspond to the proportion entering another.