Could masks curtail the post-lockdown resurgence of COVID-19 in the US?

2.1 Model Formulation

The objectives of this study will be achieved via the design, analysis, parametrization and simulations of a Kermack-McKendrick-type SEIR (susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered) epidemic (no human demograhy) model for the transmission dynamics and control of COVID-19 in a population. In addition to incorporating pertinent aspects of the epidemiology of the disease, the model to be developed will allow for the assessment of the non-pharmaceutical interventions being implemented in the US, notably social-distancing, face mask usage and contact-tracing and testing. The model to be developed is based on stratifying the total human population at time t, denoted by N (t), into mutually exclusive compartments based on disease status. Specifically, we split N (t) into the sub-populations of individuals who are susceptible (S(t); i.e., uninfected individuals who may contract the disease at a later time), exposed (E(t); i.e., individuals who are newly-infected but are not yet infectious), pre-symptomatic exposed (E_p(t); i.e., newly-infected individuals who start shedding the virus before the end of the incubation period), asymptomatically-infectious (I_a(t); i.e., individuals who do not show clinical symptoms of the disease at the end of the incubation period), infectious with mild symptoms (I_m(t)), infectious with severe symptoms (I_s(t)), infectious in self-isolation (I_i(t)), hospitalized or isolated at a health care facility (I_h(t)), individuals in intensive care units (I_c(t)), recovered but not tested (R_u(t)) and tested recovered (R_t(t)). Further, serologic (antibody) testing of recovered humans is important for determining the level of immunity to COVID-19. Thus, The model is given by the following deterministic system of nonlinear differential equations (where a dot represents differentiation with respect to time t): where the force of infection λ is defined as: In the model (2.1), susceptible individuals acquire COVID-19 following effective contact with individuals in the pre-symptomatic (E_p), asymptomatically-infectious (I_a), mildly-symptomatic (I_m) and severely-symptomatic (I_s) classes, at a rate λ (defined in (2.2) below). Newly-infected individuals (in the E class) progress to the pre-symptomatic class at a rate σ_e. At the end of the incubation period, a proportion, 0 < r ≤ 1, of humans in the E_p class progress to the asymptomatically-infectious class (I_a), at a rate rσ_p (where 0 < r < 1 is the proportion of pre-symptomatic humans who do not show clinical symptoms of COVID-19 at the end of the incubation period). The remaining proportion, 1 − r, who show clinical symptoms of COVID-19 at the end of the incubation period, are split into those who show mild symptoms (at a rate g(1− r), where 0 < g ≤ 1 is the proportion of the fraction), 1− r, that shows mild symptoms of COVID-19) and those who show severe symptoms (at a rate (1 − g)(1 − r)).

Asymptomatic individuals in the E, E_p and I_a classes are detected, via random diagnostic/surveillance testing, at a rate τ_d. Similarly, serology testing is administered to untested recovered individuals (i.e., those in R_u class) at a rate τ_s. Recovery in the I_k (k = a, i, c) class occurs at a rate γ_k. Individuals with mild and severe symptoms are self-isolated at the rate ρ_m and (1 − f)ρ_s (where 0 < f ≤ 1 is the proportion of individuals with severe symptoms that are hospitalized), respectively. Self-isolated individuals are hospitalized at a rate ξ_i. COVID-induced mortality occurs in I_k (k = s, i, h, c) at a rate δ_k. Hospitalized individuals are admitted into ICU at a rate ψ_h.

In (2.2), the term 1− ε_mc_m represents a measure of the reduction in community contacts due to face mask use in the community. In particular, 0 ≤ ε_m≤ 1 is face mask efficacy in preventing the spread (i.e., outward efficacy) or acquisition (i.e., inward efficacy) of the disease and 0 ≤ c_m ≤ 1 is the community-wide compliance in face mask usage. The parameters β_p, β_a, β_m and β_s represent, respectively, the effective contact rates of infected individuals in the pre-symptomatic (E_p), asymptomatically-infectious (I_a), symptomatically-infectious with mild symptoms (I_m) and symptomatically-infectious with severe symptoms (I_s) class. The parameter 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1 is a major of the effectiveness of hospitalization, self-isolation and ICU admission to prevent COVID-19 transmission by individuals in the I_i, I_h and I_c classes.

Diagnostic and serology testing are universally considered to be highly crucial to slowing community transmission of COVID-19. In particular, diagnostic testing allows for the detection, rapid isolation and contact tracing of cases, thereby breaking the chain of community transmission that would have otherwise ensued. In the model (2.1), diagnostic testing is accounted for by way of detecting asymptomatic infected individuals, in the E, E_p and I_a classes (at the rate τ_d). We use the following functional form for τ_d: where τ_dmax is the maximum detection rate via diagnostic testing and T_n is the average total number of tests administered in the community per day. It should be noted that T_n can also be interpreted as a function of the number of available test kits in the community. During the 7-day period from April 30 to May 6, 2020, the average number of tests per day for the US was 264, 249. The maximum number of tests for the States of Arizona, Florida and New York, for the same time period, were 3, 275 (with 10.9% of these positive), 12, 223 (with 4.5% of these positive) and 22, 345 (with 13.8% of these positive), respectively [35]. These numbers are below the minimum levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) (10, 743 for Arizona; 23,937 for Florida; 112,802 for New York and 917, 450 for the whole of US). The positive test ratio benchmark recommended by the WHO is 10% or less [35]. Similarly, we use the following definition for τ_s: where τ_smax is the maximum detection rate for the serology (antibody) testing in the community.

The model (2.1) monitors human population. Hence, all its state variables are non-negative for all time t (further, all parameters of the model are non-negative). For housekeeping purposes, we introduce an equation for the rate of change of the population of COVID-deceased individuals (denoted by D(t)), given by: A flow diagram of the model (2.1) is depicted in Figure 1, and the state variables and parameters of the model are described in Tables A.1 and A.2 (in Appendix A), respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Flow diagram of the model (2.1), showing the transition of individuals between mutually-exclusive compartments based on disease status. Notation: σ_a = rσ_p, σ_m = (1− r)gσ_p, σ_s = (1 − r)(1− g)σ_p. The state variables and parameters are described in Table A.2.

2.2 Data Fitting and Parameter Estimation

The model (2.1) has 24 parameters, and realistic values for 12 of these parameters are available in the literature (Table A.3). Estimates of the values of the remaining 12 (unknown) parameters are obtained by fitting the model to the observed cumulative deaths data for the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US. Specifically, we fit the cumulative death profile generated from the model (2.1), given by (where T is the prescribed future time), to the observed cumulative mortality data. Cumulative mortality data for the pre-lockdown periods for these jurisdictions (March 6 to March 31, 2020 for Arizona, March 1 to April 3, 2020 for Florida, March 1 to March 22, 2020 for New York and January 22 to April 7, 2020 for the whole of US) and the lockdown periods (March 31 to May 15, 2020 for Arizona, April 3 to May 4, 2020 for Florida, March 22 to May 28, 2020 for New York and April7 to May 28, 2020 for most of the US) was obtained from various publicly-available sources, such as the World Health Organization, the John Hopkins’ Center for Systems Science and Engineering COVID-19 Dashboard and Worldometer [5, 36–38]. The model was fitted to the data using the standard nonlinear least squares approach. This entails determining the best parameter set that minimizes the sum of the squares of the differences between Model (2.1) outputs (i.e., the model-predicted cumulative mortality) and the confirmed COVID-19 cumulative mortality data for the states of Arizona, Florida, New York, and the entire US for the pre-lockdown and lockdown periods.

The choice of fitting mortality data, as opposed the COVID-19 incidence data (which is what many COVID-19 modelers seem to prefer) is motivated by the fact that the COVID-19 mortality data is more reliable than the corresponding incidence data. The justification for this claim is that the absence of a realistic way (i.e., implementing robust rapid testing strategy across the country or jurisdiction) to quantify the size of the pool of COVID-19-infected individuals who show no symptoms of the disease makes the data for the confirmed cases to be unreliable. Lau et al. [39] evaluated the massive under-reporting and under-testing of COVID-19 cases in multiple global epicenters, including the US. Their data analytics study shows that, due to limited testing capacities, mortality numbers may serve as a better indicator for COVID-19 case spread in many countries (including the US). Their data indicate that countries like France, Italy, the United States, Iran, and Spain have extremely high numbers of undetected and under-reported cases. Furthermore, in a recent congressional hearing, the Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that the current projected cumulative case data for the US may be 10 times lower than the actual case data [40].

The observed cumulative mortality data, together with the fits of the model (2.1) for the pre-lockdown and lockdown periods for the four jurisdictions, are presented in Figure 2. The estimated values of the 12 calibrated (fitted) parameters of the model (obtained from the model/data fitting) are tabulated in Tables A.4 - A.7. The baseline values of the other (12 known) parameters of the model are given in Table A.3 are drawn from the literature or estimated based on information from the literature (see [41] for details.)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Data fitting of the model (2.1), for the pre-lockdown and lockdown periods for the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US. (a)-(d): cumulative mortality data and model fit for the pre-lockdown period for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York, and the entire US, respectively. (e)-(h): cumulative mortality data and model fit for the lockdown period for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US, respectively.

3.1 Computation of Final Epidemic Size and Reproduction Number

The model (2.1) has a continuum (or family) of disease-free equilibria given by: where S(0) is the initial number of susceptible individuals in the community. The asymptotic stability analysis of this family of equilibria will be explored below to gain qualitative insight into the behavior of initial solutions of the model, particularly with respect to the control of the burden of the pandemic. For an epidemic model (i.e., a model without demographic dynamics), such as (2.1), a useful feature to compute is the final size of the disease [42–44]. It provides a measure of the number of individuals who remain susceptible at the end of the epidemic. The approach in [42] will be used to compute the final size relation for the model (2.1). To apply this method, it is convenient to let , and be vectors representing the compartments of infected, susceptible and recovered individuals in the model (2.1), respectively. That is, x = (E, E_p, I_a, I_m, I_s, I_i, I_h, I_c)^T, y = S and z = (R_u, R_t)^T. Furthermore, suppose, Π is an 8 ×1 matrix in which the (i, j) entry is the fraction of the j^th susceptible compartment that goes into the i^th infected class upon becoming infected, and b is an 8 − dimensional row vector of relative horizontal transmissions. It then follows from Arino et al. [42] that the model (2.1) reduces to the following three-dimensional system of differential equations: where λ is the force of infection of the model (2.1) defined in (2.2), W is a 2 × 8 matrix in which the (i, j) entry is the rate at which individuals of the j^th infected compartment transition into the recovered (i^th z) compartment upon recovery, and V is the standard M-matrix of the linear transition terms between the infected compartments of the model (2.1) [42] (see also the application of next generation operator method to analyse the asymptotic stability of disease-free equilibria of disease transmission models [45, 46]). It can be seen that, in the context of model (2.1), and, Let y(0) = S(0), z(0) = (R_u(0), R_t(0))^T. It then follows from Theorem 2.1 in [42] that the reproduction number of the model (2.1), denoted by ℛ, is given by: where, with, The reproduction number ℛ_c is an epidemiological quantity that measures the average number of new COVID-19 cases generated by a typical infected individual introduced into a community where some anti-COVID-19 interventions (such as social-distancing, face mask usage and self-isolation) are implemented. The result below follows from Theorem 2.1 of [42].

Finally, it follows from Theorem 5.1 of [42] that the final epidemic size relation for the model (2.1) is given by where . This final size relation can be solved recursively for S(∞) using, for instance, the Newton-Raphson’s method, to obtain the number of susceptible humans who remain uninfected after the epidemic.

3.2 Sensitivity of Reproduction Number With Respect to Case Detection and Face Mask Usage

In this section, the effect of case detection and self-isolation of asymptomatic individuals in the E, E_p and I_a classes (using diagnostic testing) and face mask usage on the reproduction number (ℛ_c) of the model (2.1) will be assessed, for the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US. We first simulate the effect of maximum case detection (τ_dmax) for two scenarios, where face masks of low quality (such as home-made cloth masks with estimated efficacy of 25%) or of moderate quality (such as medical/surgical masks, with estimated efficacy of 50%) are used in the community. A contour plot (heat map) of ℛ_c, as a function of percentage increase in the maximum case detection rate (i.e., increase in the baseline value of τ_dmax) and face mask compliance (c_m), is depicted in Figure 3. This figure shows that the reproduction number (ℛ_c) decreases with increasing values of the percentage increase in the maximum case detection rate and face mask compliance, for the states of Arizona (Figure 3 (a) and (e)), Florida (Figure 3 (b) and (f)), New York (Figure 3 (c) and (g)) and the entire US (Figure 3 (d) and (h)), regardless of the type (or efficacy) of the face mask used in the community. In particular, it is evident from the contour plots that the reproduction number can be brought to a value less than unity (thereby resulting in effectively curtailing community transmission of COVID-19) in Arizona, Florida and New York if the baseline maximum case detection rate is increased by at least 10%, the face mask efficacy is 25%, and face mask compliance exceeds 73%, 95%, and 35%, respectively. If the face mask efficacy is increased to 50%, then for the same maximum detection rate of 10%, face mask use compliance 37%, 48%, and 18% is required to reduce the reproduction number below one. Greater reductions in ℛ_c are recorded if the moderately-effective face mask (Figure 3 (e)-(h)) are used in the community, in comparison to when low effective face masks are used (Figure 3 (a)-(d)). These plots clearly show that widespread (random) testing (which then implies rapid detection, tracing and isolation of confirmed cases), combined with face mask usage, significantly contributes in reducing community transmission (by breaking the chain of transmission) regardless of the efficacy of face masks.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Sensitivity of the control reproduction number (ℛ_c) to important control parameters.

Heat maps of the control reproduction number, as a function of cloth face mask use compliance and percentage increases in the maximum detection rate of asymptomatic infected individuals (τ_dmax). (a)-(d): impact of cloth masks (with efficacy ε_m = 0.25) on disease dynamics for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (e)-(h): impact of surgical/medical masks (with efficacy ε_m = 0.50) on disease dynamics for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (h)-(k): impact of face masks efficacy (ε_m) and compliance (c_m) on disease dynamics for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. Parameter values used in the simulations are as given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A.

The sensitivity of the reproduction number with respect to the singular effect of face masks is monitored by generating contour plots of ℛ_c, as a function of face mask efficacy (ε_m) and compliance (c_m). The results obtained, depicted in Figure 3 (i)-(l), for Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US, show decreasing values of the reproduction number with increasing values of face mask efficacy and compliance, as expected. It is shown that, with the assumed baseline face mask efficacy of 50% (i.e., ε_m = 0.5), a minimum compliance of 53% will be needed to effectively curtail community transmission in the state of Arizona (Figure 3 (i)). The corresponding minimum compliance percentages needed to achieve some control in Florida, New York and the whole of US are, 59%, 38% and 46%, respectively. The contours in Figure 3 (i)-(l) also show that using low effective face masks (e.g., the cloth mask with estimated efficacy of 25%) with high compliance can lead to significant reduction in disease burden. However, using such (cloth) masks will fail to reduce the reproduction number to a value below unity, even if 100% compliance is achieved, in the states of Arizona and Florida. On the other hand, such masks can bring the reproduction number to a value less than unity for the state of New York and the entire nation if the compliance in its usage is at least 76% and 92%, respectively.

4.1 Impact of Early Implementation of Lockdown Measures and Mask use Compliance

It should be recalled that lockdown measures were implemented in the states of Arizona, Florida and New York on March 31, 2020, April 3, 2020 and March 22, 2020, respectively, while the entire US was on lockdown by April 7, 2020. Furthermore, partial lifting of the lockdown measures were announced in the three states by May 15, 2020, May 4, 2020 and May 28, 2020, respectively. Although some US states delayed announcing some form of lifting of lockdown measures until June 2020, the overwhelming majority of the US states implemented some form of lifting by May 28, 2020. Consequently, we assume that the entire US started partial lifting of lockdown on May 28, 2020, as was the case for the state of New York. We now run simulations of the model (2.1) for the three scenarios: (a) the precise period when community lockdown was actually implemented, (b) lockdown measures were implemented a week earlier than the actual time it was implemented, and (c) lockdown measures were implemented two weeks earlier than the actual time they were implemented, for each of the three states and the entire US.

The simulation results obtained for scenario in which lockdown was implemented one week earlier are depicted in Figure 4, showing daily and cumulative mortality for the three states and the US. This figure shows a marked decrease in the peak daily deaths in each of the four locations (Figures 4 (a)-(d), magenta curves). In other words, the pandemic curves in the three states and in the entire US would have been flattened earlier (characterized by very low numbers at the pandemic peak). The decrease in daily mortality is even more dramatic if lockdown was implemented two weeks earlier (Figures 4 (a)-(d), green curves). Furthermore, our simulations show that if the lockdown measures were implemented a week earlier in Arizona, up to 75% of the cumulative number of COVID-19 deaths in the state could have been averted (Figure 4 (e), magenta curve). Similarly, 76% of the cumulative deaths in the state of Florida (Figure 4 (f), magenta curve) and 99% of the cumulative mortality in the state of New York (Figure 4 (f), magenta curve) would have been prevented. At least 77% of the cumulative deaths recorded in the entire US would have been averted if lockdown measures were implemented a week earlier (Figure 4 (h), magenta curve). More dramatic reductions in cumulative mortality would have been recorded if the lockdown measures were implemented two weeks earlier (Figure 4 (e)-(h), green curves).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Impact of early lockdown:

Simulations of the model (2.1), showing the daily and cumulative mortality, as a function of time, for various durations of the onset of lockdown measures for the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the whole of US. The model is ran from the date of the index case, for each of the four jurisdictions, and extended one month beyond the first day of the relaxation (or partial lifting) of the lockdown measures. (a)-(d): daily deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (e)-(h): cumulative deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. The predictions of the model, for the case when community lockdown measures were implemented one week earlier, two weeks earlier, or on the actual date the lockdown measures were implemented, are represented by magenta, green, and blue curves, respectively. Red dots represent the actual observed data, while blue dashed vertical lines depict the start and end of the actual lockdown period (shaded in cyan). Parameter used in the simulations are given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, with various start dates for the implementation of community lockdown measures.

Simulations were also carried out to assess the community-wide impact of increased face mask usage during the lockdown period in each of the four jurisdictions considered in this study. For these simulations, four levels of face mask compliance (in relation to the baseline value of the face mask compliance during lockdown, tabulated in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A), namely 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% compliance, are considered. The results obtained, depicted in Figure 5, show a marked decrease in cumulative mortality with increasing compliance level of mask usage in each of the four jurisdictions. In particular, it can be seen that, if half of the residents of the state of Arizona consistently wear face mask in public during the lockdown period, up to 47% of the cumulative mortality recorded by the day of the partial lifting of the lockdown measures in the state (May 14, 2020) would have been averted (Figure 5 (a)). Similarly, up to 30%, 50% and 26% of the cumulative deaths recorded by the day of the lifting of the lockdown in the states of Florida (Figure 5 (b)), New York (Figure 5 (c)) and in the entire US (Figure 5 (d)) would have been averted if half their residents wear face masks consistently during their respective lockdown periods.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5: Impact of face masks compliance during lockdown:

Simulations of the model (2.1), showing cumulative mortality, as a function of time, for the US state of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US. The model is simulated from the date of the index case for each of the four jurisdictions, for different levels of face masks compliance (c_m). (a)-(d): cumulative deaths for the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. The blue curve represents the case for the baseline value of the face masks compliance, and the red dots represent the actual data. The blue dashed vertical lines represent the onset and termination dates for the lockdown measures (this region is shaded in cyan color). Parameter values used in the simulations are as given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, with various levels of face masks compliance (c_m).

A dramatic increase in the cumulative mortality averted in the four jurisdictions is recorded if 75% of the residents of the four jurisdictions wear face masks during the lockdown period. Specifically, while up to 60% and 42% of mortality recorded by the day of lifting of lockdown measures in Arizona and Florida would be averted, the state of New York and the entire US would prevent up to 65% and 37% of the deaths they recorded by the day of the lifting (if 75% of their respective residents wear face masks during the lockdown). If everyone in the four jurisdictions wear face mask during the lockdown, the percentage reduction of the cumulative mortality on the day of lifting of lockdown in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the whole of US further increase to 66%, 50%, 74% and 44%, respectively (this corresponds to 468, 714, 21, 928, and 44, 380 deaths being avoided in the respective jurisdictions, under this 100% face mask compliance scenario). The actual cumulative mortality recorded in the four jurisdictions by their respective day of the partial lifting of the lockdown (based on using the baseline values of the face mask compliance, given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A), together with the cumulative mortality that would have been recorded on the day of the lifting for various face mask compliance levels, are tabulated in Table 4.1.

In summary, it can be concluded from Figures 4 and 5 that early implementation of lockdown (i.e., if they were implemented a week or two earlier than the day they were implemted), combined with increased level of face masks use during the lockdown periods, will result in a dramatic reduction in the burden of the pandemic in each of the four jurisdictions considered in this study. In fact, these figures show that it is quite possible that the pandemic might not have even (significantly) taken off in any of the four jurisdictions if the lockdown measures were implemented two weeks earlier, and if most of the residents of the four jurisdictions wore face masks consistently in public.

4.2 Impact of Varying Levels of Lifting of Community Lockdown Measures

The model (2.1) is now simulated, using the parameter values in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, to assess the community-wide impact of varying levels of lifting of the community lockdown measures implemented in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US. Various states and jurisdictions within the US (with the exception of the states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, District of Columbia, Illinois, and Delaware) implemented various levels of lifting of the lockdown measures (by May 20, 2020) [27], in an effort to re-open socio-economic activities. We consider three levels of community lockdown lifting, namely mild, moderate and high, as described below (adapted from [47]):

High re-opening

For high level of lifting of community lockdown, gatherings of up to 50 people are allowed. Additionally, nonessential businesses (such as indoor dining at restaurants with up to 50% capacity and tables spaced at least six feet away from each other; seating in bar areas allowed, but only if six feet of distance can be maintained between parties) are allowed to re-open. Furthermore, personal care services, such as nail salons, massage parlors, spar services and tanning salons can reopen. Some “low-risk” youth sports are allowed. Similarly, indoor religious gatherings can operate at 33% of maximum capacity. Nonessential businesses, such as, low-risk outdoor arts and entertainment activities, including zoos, botanical gardens, historical sites, outdoor museums and parks, low-risk indoor arts and entertainment activities, including museums, aquariums and historical sites; film, movie and music production; higher education institutions; professional sports, without fans in the stands, are allowed. Places that often draw large crowds (e.g., movie theaters, gyms and fitness centers, shopping malls, etc.,) are allowed to reopen.

We model lifting of community lockdown based on increases in community contacts, as measured in terms of increases in the baseline values of the community contact rate parameters, β_p, β_a, β_i and β_s (tabulated in Tables A.4-A.7 (b)). In particular, we assume that mild lifting of lockdown measures corresponds to a 5% increase in the baseline values of the contact rate parameters. Similarly, we assume that moderate and high lifting correspond to a 10% and 20% increase in the baseline values of these parameters, respectively. While numerous US states adopted mild or moderate levels of reopening, none, to the authors’ knowledge, adopted the high reopening level. In other words, high reopening represents a worst-case scenario that is not, at the current moment, realistically plausible. We do not expect any US state to adopt the high reopening level (until community transmission of the pandemic is greatly curtailed and/or a safe and effective vaccine or antiviral is available.

It should further be stated that, for the simulations to be carried out in this section, all control-related parameters of the model (e.g., parameters related to the use of face masks in public (c_m and ε_m and case detection (τ_d, τ_s and τ_dmax etc.) are kept at their baseline values. That is, for the simulations in this section, no additional improvements in the baseline values of the control-related parameters of the model will be allowed (i.e., all control measures are implemented at their baseline levels given in Tables A.4-A.7).

The simulation results obtained, depicted in Figure 6, show an increase in both the daily and cumulative COVID-19-induced mortality with increasing lifting levels of the community lockdown. This is expected, since increasing the level of lifting of the community lockdown measures implies increased community contacts, thereby resulting in increased number of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths. For the worst-case scenario, where the lifting level is high (i.e., the baseline values of the community contact rate parameters are increased by 20%), the states of Arizona, Florida and the entire US will experience a devastating second wave of the pandemic, occurring five to ten months after the lockdown measures were lifted, while the state of New York will only experience a mild second wave (Figure 6, red curves). In particular, under this high lifting scenario (and with control measures at their baseline values), the second wave for the states of Arizona and Florida will peak in mid and late October, 2020, respectively, (with about 1, 148 and 2, 733 COVID-19 related deaths in Arizona and Florida, respectively on the day the pandemic peaks (Figures 6 (a)-(b), red curves)). Similarly, the second wave for the entire US will peak early in February 2021 (recording about 2, 788 deaths on the day of the second wave peak), and no pandemic peak will be experienced at the state of New York (Figures 6 (c)-(d), red curves).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6: Impact of re-opening of community lockdown.

Simulations of the model (2.1), showing daily and cumulative mortality, as a function of time, for various levels of re-opening of community lockdown measures in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US. Mild, moderate, and high re-opening of community lockdown corresponds to a 5%, 10%, and 20% increase in the baseline value of the community contact rate parameters (β_p, β_a, β_i, and β_s), respectively. (a)-(d): Daily deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (e)-(h): Cumulative deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. Other parameter values used in the simulations are as given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A.

On the other hand, if the level of lifting of the community lockdown was moderate, our results show a marked decrease in the size of the pandemic peaks, as well as a shift in the timing of the peaks (Figures 6 (a)-(d), magenta curves). Specifically, for this scenario, the peak of the second wave for Arizona and Florida will occur in mid to late April and Frebruary, 2021, respectively, while the US state of New York and the entire US do not experience a second wave. Furthermore, the moderate lifting scenario will avert over 92% and 84% of the deaths that would have occurred at the peak of the pandemic in Arizona and Florida, respectively, if high level of lifting of the control measures is implemented (i.e., compare red and magenta curves in Figures 6 (a)-(d)).

If mild lifting of the community lockdown was implemented, our simulations show that while the states of Florida, New York and the whole of US will not experience a second wave, Florida will experience a relatively mild second wave that will peak in late November, 2020 (Figures 6 (a)-(d), green curves). In this (mild lifting) scenario, Florida will record about 46 deaths at the peak of the second wave. This represents a 98% reduction of the mortality that would have been recorded at the peak of the second wave in Florida if high lifting of lockdown measures was implemented. Furthermore, for this mild lifting of lockdown scenario, the states of Arizona, Florida, New York, and the entire US will record about 2, 274, 12, 06032, 380, and 155, 900 cumulative deaths, respectively, by the end of December 2020. These cumulative death numbers represent increases of about 438, 4, 252, 30, and 5, 300, respectively, in the cumulative mortality that would have been recored by the end of September 2020. Additionally, the projected cumulative mortality numbers by the end of the year represent increases of about 1, 623, 10, 661, 2, 240, and 50, 004, respectively, from the actual cumulative mortality numbers when each of the four jurisdiction started re-opening (Figures 6 (e)-(h)). Table 4.2 summarizes the cumulative COVID-19 related deaths that would have been averted in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York, and the entire US, by the end of September, October, November, and December of 2020, if the mild level of lifting of community lockdown was implemented in the four locations, in comparison to implementing the moderate level of lifting of community lockdown (showing greater reductions in the states of Arizona and Florida, in comparison to the mild or moderate reductions in the state of New York and the whole of US).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4.2:

Percentage reduction in cumulative COVID-19 mortality averted in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US (by the end of September, October, November, and December of 2020) if mild levels of lifting of community lockdown was implemented, in comparison to the case where moderate level of lifting of the community lockdown was implemented. Mild and moderate lifting of community lockdown correspond, respectively, to a 5% and 10% increase in the baseline values of the community contact rate parameters (β_p, β_a, β_i and β_s).

It is worth emphasizing that the size of the second wave depends on the level of lifting of the lockdown measures implemented and the location. For instance, while the state of Florida will always record a second wave, regardless of the level of the lifting of the community lockdown measures (mild, moderate, or high), the states of Arizona and New York, as well as the entire US, will not record a (significant) second wave if the level of lifting of the community lockdown was mild. In all four locations, the size (or pubic health burden of the second wave) decreases with decreasing level of the lifting of the community lockdown measures. Further, moderate and mild lifting not only decreases the peak daily mortality, they shift the time of the second wave. It is also notable from Figure 6 that the second wave in Arizona and Florida is far more severe than the first wave, regardless of the level of lifting of the community lockdown implemented in the two states.

4.3 Effect of Mask Usage After High Lifting of Community Lockdown Measures

In this section, the model (2.1) is simulated, using the parameter values in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, to assess the community-wide impact of mask usage during the post-lockdown period in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the whole of US. For these simulations, we consider high level of lifting of the community lockdown measures in all four jurisdictions (i.e., we consider the scenario where the baseline values of the community contact rate parameters, β_p, β_a, β_i and β_s, are increased by 20% in all four locations) and various values of face mask compliance (c_m). Note that the baseline efficacy of the face mask to protect the wearer from acquiring infection is assumed to be 50% (i.e., ε_m = 0.5). The simulation results obtained are depicted in Figure 7, from which it follows that the cumulative number of cases, hospitalizations and COVID-induced mortality decrease with increasing face mask compliance. It was observed that if two in every five people (i.e., 40%) in each of the jurisdictions considered in this study wear face masks in public after the lockdown measures were lifted, only the state of Florida will experience a (very mild) second wave of the pandemic. In this scenario, the states of Arizona and New York, as well as the entire US, will not have a second wave of the pandemic. Furthermore, no second wave of the pandemic will be experienced in any of the four jurisdictions if half of the residents wear face masks after the lockdown (this is obtained from plotting the corresponding daily mortality; the plot is not included to save space).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7: Impact of face mask usage on COVID-19 burden after mhigh lifting of community lockdown.

Simulations of the model (2.1), for high lifting of community lockdown in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US, and various levels of face mask compliance (c_m). (a)-(d): Cumulative mortality for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (e)-(h): Cumulative hospitalizations for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (i)-(l): Cumulative cases for the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. Parameter values used are as given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, and various levels of face mask compliance (c_m).

If half of Arizonans wear face masks after the lockdown period, under this high lifting scenario, Figure 7 (a) shows that the state will record a cumulative mortality of 1, 180 by the end of December 2020 (and this corresponds to a 98% reduction in the cumulative mortality that would have been recorded in the state if the face mask compliance was at the estimated value of 14% during the lockdown period, tabulated in Table A.4)). Similarly, the states of Florida, New York, and the entire US will record 4, 465, 31, 770, and 138, 800 cumulative deaths, respectively (over the same time period), if half their populations wear face masks in public after the lockdown period. This represents a reduction of 96%, 26% and 67% in the cumulative mortality, respectively, that would have been recorded if the respective estimated face mask compliance during the lockdown period was used (Figures 7 (b)-(d)). These numbers decrease dramatically if 75% of the residents of the four jurisdictions wear face masks immediately after the lifting of the lockdown measures. For example, the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the whole US will record cumulative mortality of 951, 2, 516, 31, 270 and 124, 200, respectively (over the same time period), if 75% of their respective residents wear face masks after the lockdown period (representing a 99%, 99%, 28% and 74% reduction in the respective cumulative mortality in comparison to when the estimated lockdown face mask compliance value is used). Higher reductions are observed when everyone wears face mask after the lockdown (albeit the reductions are far more pronounced in the states of Arizona and Florida, than in the state of New York and the entire US). Figure 7 shows similar results for the reductions in the cumulative hospitalizations (Figures 7 (e)-(h)) and the cumulative new COVID cases (Figures 7 (i)-(l)).

4.4 Effect of Mask Usage After High Lifting of Community Lockdown Measures

When high level of lifting is implemented (i.e., the associated community contact rate parameters (β_p, β_a, β_i and β_s) are increased by over 20% from their baseline values), our simulations show that a second wave in all four jurisdictions would be inevitable, depending on the level of the increase of the high lifting scenario. We consider a hypothetical scenario where the level of lifting of the community lockdown measures is further increased, such as to a level that entails increasing the baseline values of the community contact rate parameters (β_p, β_a, β_i and β_s) by 50%. This higher level may be akin to essentially returning to business as usual, where no significant restrictions are imposed (except, perhaps, no large gatherings such as major sporting, social and political campaign events). The simulation results obtained, for this hypothetical scenario in the four jurisdictions, are depicted in Figure 8. This figure shows a dramatic decrease in daily COVID-induced mortality with increasing face mask compliance. For this higher community lockdown lifting scenario, the states of Arizona and Florida will experience a major second wave peaking on October 19, 2020 (with 1, 294 deaths on this day) and October 3, 2020 (with 3, 599 deaths on this day), respectively, even if half their residents wear face masks after the lockdown has been lifted (Figures 8 (a)-(b), red curves). The state of New York and the entire US will have milder second waves peaking on March 24, 2021 (with 123 deaths at the peak) and January 13, 2021 (with 5, 896 deaths at the peak), respectively. Furthermore, no second wave will occur in any of the four jurisdictions if 75% of their respective residents wear face masks after the lockdown period (Figures 8 (a)-(d), purple curves). In fact, under this very high lifting scenario, all four jurisdictions will have very mild or no significant outbreaks of COVID-19 if the face masks compliance is at least 75%. In other words, high masks compliance after community lockdown lifting (even if the level of lifting was very high) greatly reduces the community transmission of COVID-19 in all four jurisdictions (resulting in very mild or no outbreaks in all four jurisdictions). If everyone in the jurisdictions wear face masks after the lockdown (i.e., c_m = 1), our simulations show that, for this very high level of lifting of community lockdown (with baseline community contact rates increased by 50%), the pandemic will be effectively curtailed (as measured in terms of major suppression of community transmission) in all four locations within two to three months after the community lockdown measures have been lifted.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8: Impact of higher lifting of community lockdown measures

(as measured in terms of 50% increase in the baseline values of the community contact rate parameters, β_e, β_i, β_a and β_s) and various compliance levels of face mask usage in the four jurisdictions. Simulations fo the model (2.1) showing the daily mortality, as a function of time. (a)-(d): daily deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. Parameter values used are as given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, with various levels of face masks compliance (c_m).

4.5 Impact of Case Detection and High Lifting of Community Lockdown Measures

In this section, the model (2.1) is simulated to assess the impact of detection of exposed (E), pre-symptomatic (E_p), and asymptomatically-infectious (I_a) individuals, via the implementation of a COVID-19 diagnostic/surveillance testing strategy (as measured in terms of increase in the baseline values of the maximum detection rate parameter, τ_dmax), and high level of lifting of community lockdown measures, on the burden of COVID-19 in the four jurisdictions considered in this study. The results obtained, depicted in Figure 9, show a dramatic decrease in the daily and cumulative mortality with increasing values of the maximum detection rate. This figure shows that, while Arizona, Florida, and the entire US will suffer a major second wave if the baseline value of the maximum detection rate (τ_dmax) is used (as depicted in Figure 6), much milder second waves will be recorded in the states of Arizona and Florida if the baseline value of the maximum detection rate is increased by 10% (Figures 9 (a)-(d), red curves). It should be mentioned that the milder second waves will still be larger than the first waves recorded in the two jurisdictions. On the other hand, it can be seen from this figure that (for this scenario) the state of New York and the entire US will not suffer a second wave of the pandemic. If the baseline value of the maximum detection rate can be increased by 15%, our simulations show that none of the four jurisdictions will suffer a second wave. However, the decline in the daily deaths for the states of Arizona and Florida is slower that that for the state of New York and the entire US (Figures 9 (a)-(d), magenta curves). If the baseline value of the maximum detection rate is increased by 20% from its baseline value, our simulations show that none of the four jurisdictions will experience a second wave (Figures 9 (a)-(d), green curves).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 9: Impact of percentage increase in maximum detection rate of asymptomatic infected individuals,

for the case where high level of lifting of community lockdown (i.e., 20% increase in the community contact rates) was implemented in each of the four jurisdictions. Simulations of the model (2.1), showing daily and cumulative mortality, as a function of time. (a)-(d): daily deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (e)-(h): cumulative deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. Parameter values used are as given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, with various percentage increase in the value of τ_dmax.

Furthermore, a significant reduction in the cumulative mortality is achieved in all four jurisdictions, with increasing levels of the baseline maximum detection rate (Figures 9 (e)-(h)). For example, if the maximum detection rate is increased by 10% from its baseline value (noting that, for these simulations, high level of lifting of lockdown is used), our simulations for the state of Arizona show that up to 96% of cumulative mortality that would have been recorded by the end of December 2020, under the high lifting scenario with baseline value of maximum detection rate (depcited in Figure 6) will be averted in the state if τ_dmax is increased by 10% from its baseline value (i.e., compare Figures Figure 6 and Figure 9). Similarly, the states of Florida, New York and the entire US will avert 91%, 25%, and 60% of the respective cumulative deaths that would have been recorded by the end of December, 2020, under this scenario. Our simulations show even more dramatic decrease in the cumulative number of deaths if the baseline maximum detection rate is increased by 20% (Figure 9, green curves). It can be concluded from Figure 9 that widespread (random) diagnostic testing (i.e., the detection, tracing and rapid self-isolation of infected individuals with no symptoms of COVID-19) plays a major role in curtailing community transmission in each of the four jurisdictions. Consequently, widespread testing greatly contributes in suppressing community transmission of COVID-19. In particular, ramping up testing to a level that increases the baseline value of the maximum detection rate (τ_dmax), by as low as 20%, could greatly diminish community transmission, to the extent that Arizona, Florida, New York state, and the entire US may not experience a second wave. In summary, widespread random testing contributes in detecting, tracing and isolating asymptomatic cases (hence, breaking their transmission chains) that would otherwise be spreading the virus in the community. More testing clearly does not mean more new cases. More testing means more detection (and rapid isolation) of asymptomatic cases, thereby reducing community transmission. It should be emphasized that face masks compliance is maintained at the baseline value depicted in Tables A.3-A.4.

Additional simulations were carried out to assess the combined impact of percentage increases in the maximum case detection rate (τ_dmax) of asymptomatic infected individuals (i.e., infected individuals in the E, E_p and I_a classes) and increased mask use compliance (c_m), from their baseline values, on the public health burden of the pandemic in the four jurisdictions. The simulations were carried out for the case where a high level of lifting of the community lockdown (i.e., 20% increase in the baseline values of the community contact rate parameters) was implemented in each of the four jurisdictions. The results obtained are depicted in Figure 10, from which it follows that the daily and cumulative mortality significantly decreases with increasing levels of the maximum case detection rate (from its baseline value). For instance, even a 10% increase in the baseline value of the maximum case detection rate could lead to a sizable reduction in the cumulative mortality in all four jurisdictions. Furthermore, a 20% increase in the baseline level of the maximum case detection rate can dramatically decrease the burden of the pandemic in each of the four jurisdictions even if combined with low level of face mask compliance, such as 25% face mask compliance (Figure 10, green curves). In fact, this combination (of 20% increase in baseline value of τ_dmax and 25% face mask compliance) can avert a second wave in each of the four jurisdictions. For this particular case (with 20% increase in baseline value of τ_dmax and 25% mask compliance), the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the whole of US will record, respectively, about 1, 075, 3, 394, 31, 620, and 138, 000 cumulative deaths by the first week of December 2020. This corresponds to 99%, 99%, 28% and 71% decrease in the cumulative deaths if the maximum case detection rate (τ_dmax) was combined only with baseline face mask compliance (i.e., if only baseline face mask compliance is used). Larger increases in the maximum case detection rate and increased face mask compliance will lead to even more significant decrease in the burden of the pandemic in all four jurisdictions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 10: Impact of increase in maximum detection rate of asymptomatic infected individuals (τ_dmax) and face masks use.

Simulations of the model (2.1), showing daily and cumulative mortality, as a function of time, for high level of lockdown lifting in the states of Arizona, Florida, New York and the entire US. (a)-(d): daily deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. (e)-(h): cumulative deaths for the state of Arizona, Florida, New York and all of US, respectively. Parameter values used are as given in Tables A.3-A.4 in Appendix A, with various values of percentage increases in τ_dmax and face masks compliance fixed at 25% (i.e., c_m = 0.25).