SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
risa1938-sup-0001-Supmat.zip19661K

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 (fh = 0.7) and 70% contact rate in the high-activity group (fd = 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 (fh = 0.3) and 70% contact rate in the high-activity group(fd = 0.7) for disease transmission models I and II.

Figure S4: Infections as a function of compliance given nH = nL = 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 λH = 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, fh = 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, fh = 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, fd = fh = 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, fd = 0.7, and increased effectiveness of the hygiene intervention, fh = 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, λH = 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, λH = 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, nH = nL = 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, nH = nL = 50, 000 persons and p = 0.028.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.