Figure S1: Total number of infections as a function of compliance for the higher probability of infection values in disease transmission models I and II. Figure S2: Total number of infections as a function of compliance given 70% probability of infection for respirator use (f_{h} = 0.7) and 70% contact rate in the high-activity group (f_{d} = 0.7) for disease transmission models I and II. Figure S3: Total number of infections as a function of compliance given 30% probability of infection for respirator use (f_{h} = 0.3) and 70% contact rate in the high-activity group(f_{d} = 0.7) for disease transmission models I and II. Figure S4: Infections as a function of compliance given n_{H} = n_{L} = 50, 000 persons in disease transmission models I and II. Figure S5: Infections as a function of compliance given the high-activity group contact rate λ_{H} = 35 day^{-1} in disease transmission models I and II. Figure S6: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model I with baseline conditions and p = 0.12. Figure S7: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model II with baseline conditions and p = 0.034. Figure S8: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model I with increased intervention effectiveness, fd = fh = 0.3, and p = 0.10. Figure S9: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model I with decreased intervention effectiveness, fd = fh = 0.7, and p = 0.10. Figure S10: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model I with decreased effectiveness of social distancing, fd = 0.7, and increased effectiveness of the hygiene intervention, f_{h} = 0.3, and p = 0.10. Figure S11: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions in disease transmission models I (p = 0.10) and II (p = 0.028) with decreased effectiveness of social distancing, fd = 0.3, and increased effectiveness of the hygiene intervention, f_{h} = 0.7. Figure S12: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model II with increased intervention effectiveness, fd = fh = 0.3, and p = 0.028. Figure S13: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model II with decreased intervention effectiveness, f_{d} = f_{h} = 0.7, and p = 0.028. Figure S14: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model II with decreased effectiveness of social distancing, f_{d} = 0.7, and increased effectiveness of the hygiene intervention, f_{h} = 0.3, and p = 0.028. Figure S15: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model I with increased contact rate in the high-activity group, λ_{H} = 35 day^{-1}, and p = 0.10. Figure S16: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model II with increased contact rate in the high-activity group, λ_{H} = 35 day^{-1}, and p = 0.028. Figure S17: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model I with increased initial population in the high-activity group, n_{H} = n_{L} = 50, 000 persons and p = 0.10. Figure S18: Total costs as a function of compliance given linear costs as a function of intervention compliance for both interventions, compared to exponential costs for social distancing intervention compliance in disease transmission model II with increased initial population in the high-activity group, n_{H} = n_{L} = 50, 000 persons and p = 0.028. |