Abstract
This article considers the minimization of the total number of infected individuals over the course of an epidemic in which the rate of infectious contacts can be reduced by time-dependent nonpharmaceutical interventions. The societal and economic costs of interventions are taken into account using a linear budget constraint which imposes a trade-off between short-term heavy interventions and long-term light interventions. We search for an optimal intervention strategy in an infinite-dimensional space of controls containing multiple consecutive lockdowns, gradually imposed and lifted restrictions, and various heuristic controls based for example on tracking the effective reproduction number. Mathematical analysis shows that among all such strategies, the global optimum is achieved by a single constant-level lockdown of maximum possible magnitude. Numerical simulations highlight the need of careful timing of such interventions, and illustrate their benefits and disadvantages compared to strategies designed for minimizing peak prevalence. Rather counterintuitively, adding restrictions prior to the start of a well-planned intervention strategy may even increase the total incidence.
1 Introduction
The recent pandemic has underlined the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to help mitigating disease burden in the society, along with vaccines and medications. Despite a solid body of past literature and an enormous research effort during the past two years on epidemic modelling, certain fundamental questions related to the optimal control of epidemics still remain open. In this article we discuss the optimal employment of non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate disease burden under the assumption that interventions incur societal costs which are accumulated over time. We focus on the minimization of long-term total incidence (the share of initially susceptible individuals who eventually become infected), and seek answers to questions of type:
Should interventions be imposed early, or later after prevalence has grown? Is it better to impose a one-month lockdown at 50% intervention level, or a milder two-month lockdown at 25% intervention level?
Numerical simulations and control theory are routinely used to answer such questions on a case-by-case basis for models of unlimited complexity. An alternative approach, pursued here, is to search for universal mathematical principles characterizing the shape and size of optimal interventions in simple parsimonious models.
The simplest mathematical epidemic model, incorporating a time-dependent intervention strategy is arguably defined as follows. We assume that the transmission rate of infectious contacts at time t can be reduced by a factor
Under classical simplifying assumptions that recovery from disease gives full immunity, overall vaccination status in the population remains constant, there are no imported cases from other populations, population size remains constant, and the population is homogeneously mixing, the evolution of the epidemic can be modelled using differential equations where β > 0 is a baseline transmission rate in absence of interventions, γ > 0 is the recovery rate, and S(t), I(t), and R(t) represent the shares of susceptible, infectious, and recovered individuals in the population, respectively. The special case with no interventions (u(t) = 0 for all t) reduces to the constant-rate version of the classical SIR model [1].
We write (S, I, R) = (Su, Iu, Ru) to emphasize that the epidemic trajectory depends on the chosen intervention strategy u. The societal and economic costs incurred by adopting an intervention strategy u can by measured by
total cost ,
total duration ,
maximum intervention level ||u||∞ = supt≥0 u(t).
For this model, the basic reproduction number equals . In what follows, we will assume that ℛ0 > 1 because otherwise epidemic outbreaks would not happen even in the absence of interventions [2].
1.1 Minimizing peak prevalence
Recent theoretical research [3–6] on minimizing disease burden has mostly focused on minimizing the peak prevalence
Morris et al. [3] proved that the peak prevalence subject to interventions of bounded duration ||u||0 ≤ c0 is minimized by an intervention of form and discovered that such interventions induce a second wave having a peak of same height as the first wave. Such a twin peaks phenomenon was also noted in [4]. Miclo, Spiro, and Weibull [5] studied a dual problem of minimizing the intervention cost ||u||1 subject to a bounded peak prevalence ||Iu||∞ ≤ c∞, and proved that the optimum is of form
The maintain phase in (2–3) is defined so that , which keeps the infectious share at a constant level. A similar control problem restricted to a finite time horizon is analysed in [6].
1.2 Minimizing total incidence
Recent theoretical works on minimizing total incidence include [7–10]. Under different budget constraints on intervention costs, they all conclude that the optimal interventions are constant-level lockdowns with shape
Feng, Iyer, and Li [7] considered on-off controls with finitely many switching times, with duration ||u||0 = c0 and maximum level ||u||∞ = c∞. In parallel works, Bliman et al. [8] and Ketcheson [9] studied piecewise continuous interventions subject to ||u||∞ ≤ c∞ and a bounded intervention time window [0, T0]. Bliman and Duprez [10] considered piecewise continuous interventions with bounded duration ||u||0 ≤ c0 and level ||u||∞ ≤ c∞, and described a numerical method to determine the optimal start time t1. The analysis in [10] represents the state-of-art, covering the full class of piecewise continuous intervention strategies, and taking properly into account the accumulation of intervention costs over time.
The results above provide elegant mathematical principles describing optimal intervention shapes, but they all are limited in one important aspect. Namely, they ignore the fact that interventions of higher magnitude usually inflict a higher societal cost, and as such cannot help in answering questions related to the trade-off between the magnitude and duration of an intervention.
2 Theoretical results
2.1 Optimal intervention strategy
Our goal is to minimize total incidence among intervention strategies with total time-aggregated cost bounded by ||u||1 ≤ c1 and maximum intervention level bounded by ||u||∞ ≤ c∞ for some 0 < c∞ ≤ 1. The latter constraint reflects the fact that a complete lockdown might be impossible to implement in practice. We search for a global optimum in an infinite-dimensional space of piecewise continuous intervention strategies containing multiple consecutive lockdowns, gradually imposed and lifted restrictions, and various heuristic controls based for example on tracking the effective reproduction number [11]. The following theorem shows that among all such intervention strategies, the global optimum is achieved by a simple constant-level lockdown.
For any initial state with S(0), I(0) > 0, the total incidence among all piecewise continuous intervention strategies such that ||u||1 ≤ c1 and ||u||∞ ≤ c∞ is minimized by an intervention of form (4) with level c = c∞, duration t2 − t1 = c1/c∞, and a uniquely determined start time t1.
Theorem 1 provides a simple answer to the simple but mathematically nontrivial question presented in the beginning, indicating that heavy lockdowns of short duration outperform light lockdowns of longer duration. The optimal start time t1 may be numerically determined by solving a one-dimensional optimization problem, as described in [7, 10].
2.2 Upper and lower bounds
As a byproduct of the mathematical analysis needed for proving Theorem 1, we obtain universal upper and lower bounds for total incidence, valid for all intervention strategies with a finite cost. The upper bound corresponds to total incidence in the absence of interventions, and is expressed in terms of the limiting susceptible share S0(∞) in a standard SIR epidemic with no interventions, which is numerically obtained as the unique solution in the interval of equation
For any initial state with S(0), I(0) > 0 and for any intervention strategy with finite cost ||u||1 < ∞, the total incidence is at least 1 − γ/(βS(0)) and at most 1 − S0(∞)/S(0)
3 Numerical results
The performance of the optimal strategy in Theorem 1 is investigated by numerical simulations1 using parameters with basic reproduction number ℛ0 = 3 and an average infectious period of 5 days (Table 1), roughly in line with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, e.g. [12]. The initial state corresponds to an importation of 1000 infectious individuals into a population of size 10 million.
3.1 Performance
When an epidemic with a basic reproduction number ℛ0 = 3 hits an overwhelmingly susceptible population, eventually 94.0% of individuals will become infected if no interventions are imposed. Furthermore, at least 1 − 1/(S(0) ℛ0) = 66.6% will become infected under an arbitrary intervention with a finite total cost (Theorem 2). The top panel in Fig. 1 displays the total incidence that is achievable using optimal strategies with total cost ||u||1 bounded by c1 = 7.5, 15, 30 and maximum intervention level bounded by 0 < c∞ ≤ 1. It is seen that interventions with even a modest budget of c1 = 7.5 may significantly reduce total incidence if they can be imposed at a sufficient magnitude. On the other hand, long but mild interventions have little effect on total incidence.
The bottom panel in Fig. 1 shows that the higher the maximal intervention level c∞, the longer one should wait before imposing the intervention, and that mild interventions should be started immediately. For a complete lockdown (c∞ = 1), the optimal timing is to wait for 24.94 days, corresponding to the time instant at which the uncontrolled epidemic reaches herd immunity.
3.2 Optimal start time
Fig. 2 displays the total incidence of a 20-day constant-level lockdown having level 0.75 and total cost 15, for different values of the start time, and underlines the importance of proper timing of such interventions. Mistiming the lockdown even by just one week may have a big effect on number of eventually infected individuals. Somewhat strikingly, starting too early is about equally as bad as starting too late. Similar findings have been reported in [10, 13]. Proper timing is crucial also when minimizing peak prevalence, as noted in [3].
3.3 Lack of monotonicity
Fig. 3 displays a striking phenomenon where adding restrictions before the start of an optimal intervention leads to more individuals eventually becoming infected. The original intervention (blue) with a duration 20 days and a constant level of 0.75, is started optimally at time 23.6. An alternative intervention (red) has the same level and end time but is started seven days earlier. Such a modification, aimed at mitigating disease burden by adding more restrictions, actually has an opposite effect and leads to 19.7% more infections in the long run. This negative outcome is caused by a second wave of infections which starts when the alternative intervention is lifted. This again underlines the important of proper timing: if the longer longer 27-day lockdown were started optimally at time 23.4, the total incidence would have been 0.723 which is not much higher than the best possible outcome of 1 − 1/(S(0) ℛ0) = 0.666 given in Theorem 2. Similar observations manifesting the counterintuitive lack of monotonicity has been reported in [14–16]. On a positive note, extending interventions from the end will never do harm in this way (see Lemma 8 in the appendix).
3.4 Comparison with peak-minimizing strategy
Fig. 4 displays time plots of a constant-level lockdown of type (4) designed to minimize total incidence and an intervention of type (3) designed to minimize peak prevalence. Both intervention strategies are constrained by a total budget c1 = 15 and maximum intervention level c∞ = 0.75. The latter strategy imposes restrictions earlier, and when these are lifted, the share of infectious individuals in the population is still relatively high, leading to more additional infections and a higher total incidence. As expected, the former strategy yields a lower total incidence than the latter, but at the cost of higher peak prevalence.
4 Discussion
It was proven that, among all intervention strategies with cumulative cost not exceeding c1 and magnitude never exceeding c∞, a single lockdown at level c∞, duration c1/c∞ started at an optimal time instant minimizes the total number of individuals eventually getting infected. As a consequence, assuming that a fixed proportion of infected individuals end up in hospitals and another fixed proportion will die, this strategy also minimizes the cumulative number of hospitalizations and case fatalities. We also saw that the total incidence is at least 1 − 1/(S(0) ℛ0) for any intervention with a finite total cost. This reflects the fact that in the absence of future vaccinations, the prevalence would start rising again if the susceptible share would be above the herd immunity level 1 − 1/ℛ0 at a time when interventions are relaxed.
Numerically it was seen that milder restrictions for a longer time had very little effect on the total incidence, and also, somewhat surprisingly, that restrictions imposed very early are not as effective as waiting until the prevalence has grown substantially before inserting maximal prevention. Rather counterintuitively, adding restrictions prior to the beginning of an existing intervention strategy may even result in a larger total incidence. On the contrary, as a by-product of our main proof, it was proven that adding restrictions after an intervention strategy has ended can only reduce the total incidence.
The optimization problem is formulated without having any fixed time horizon in mind. If for example a vaccine was known to become available not too far into the future, then this could lead to a rather different optimal prevention. Another assumption was that we were only willing to spend a finite cost c1 for the cumulative preventions. For a severe disease this might not be the case — we might be willing to keep some restrictive level for a very long time. In such a case the optimal solution will also be different.
A common feature of epidemic models based on deterministic differential equations is that the fraction of infected individuals never exactly reaches zero. In real epidemics, this might happen due to stochastic finite-population effects. In such cases, a feasible intervention strategy might be to aim for an early elimination of the disease by imposing massive restrictions early on, as has been advocated with SARS-CoV-2 in certain countries. The performance of such strategies cannot be analysed using the type of deterministic models considered here.
The class of interventions considered was assumed to have a bounded linear cost integrated over time. It is not obvious that the societal cost of preventive measures act linearly on the amount of prevention, and therefore nonlinear cost functionals might be relevant to consider. Similarly, changing an existing intervention level might incur additional societal costs, especially if such changes are carried out frequently. The analysis of optimal intervention strategies under such cost functions remains an open problem worthy of attention.
Other extensions worth considering would be to make the underlying epidemic model more realistic by incorporating seasonal effects, adding a latency period between which individuals have been infected but are not yet infectious, including a delay for the time it takes for an intervention decision to take effect, acknowledging different types of individuals and social structures such as households and workplaces, and relaxing the assumption that individuals recover at a constant rate. However, we do not expect major qualitative changes from these extensions, as opposed to considering nonlinear cost functions or unlimited intervention budgets.
5 Proofs
5.1 Proof of Theorem 1
Denote by U (c1, c∞) the set of piecewise continuous functions u : [0, ∞) → [0, 1] such that ||u||1 ≤ c1 and ||u||∞ ≤ c∞. Denote by J (u) the total incidence corresponding to intervention strategy u ∈ U (c1, c∞). Denote
Intuition suggests that interventions carried out in a distant future should have a negligible effect on the evolution of the epidemic. Proposition 4 in the appendix confirms this and tells that it is possible to select constants C, α, T* > 0 such that for all T ≥ T* and all controls bounded by ||u||1 ≤ c1. Let us now fix ϵ > 0 and choose u1 ∈ U (c1, c∞) such that
Truncation. We will approximate u1 by a control u2 = 1[0,T ]u1 of finite duration, where we choose a large enough T > T* so that Ce−αT ≤ ϵ. Because the trajectories and coincide up to time T, we see that
Because ||u2||1 ≤ ||u1||1 ≤ c1, inequality (5) tells that both integrals on the right are at most Ce −αT, and it follows that
Quantization. We will next approximate u2 by a bang–bang control u3 defined as follows. We divide time into small intervals Ik = ((k − 1)h, kh] of length 0 < h ≤ ϵe−(β+γ)T. We quantize the control function u2 in a frequency modulated fashion so that in each time Ik, first u3 = 0 for h − τk time units, and then u3 = c∞ for the remaining τk time units, where is selected so that , see Figure 5. As a consequence of h ≤ ϵe−(β+γ)T, it follows (details in Proposition 6) that
Furthermore, and by noting that ||u3||1 = ||u2||1 ≤ c1 (Lemma 5), inequality (5) again guarantees that both integrals on the right are at most Ce−αT ≤ ϵ. Hence it follows that
Prolongation. By construction, u3 = c∞1A where A is a finite union of intervals of total length |A|. Because ||u3||1 = c∞|A| and ||u3||1 = ||u2||1 ≤ c1, we find that |A| ≤ c1/c∞. Intuition suggests that a smaller disease burden will be incurred by replacing A by a larger subset of the time axis, but such monotonicity properties are known to fail in general (see for example [14, 15]). Nevertheless, prolonging the last interval of A from the end does increase the final susceptible share (details in Lemma 8). Let us define u4 = c∞1à where à is obtained by prolonging the last interval in A from the end so that |Ã| = c1/c∞. Then it follows that , and therefore, by recalling the equation S(0) + I(0) − Su(∞) = γ||Iu||1, we find that
Merging. The control u4 belongs to the set Ũ of all controls of the form u = c∞1B where B ⊂ [0, ∞) is a union of finitely many disjoint intervals of total length c1/c∞. Among those, the best for minimizing cumulative incidence are those where all disjoint intervals are merged into a single interval of length c1/c∞. Especially, it is known [7, Theorem 1.1] that there exists σ ≥ 0 such that the control satisfies J (u5) = infu∈Ũ J (u). Especially,
By collecting the inequalities (6)–(10) together, we conclude that
To summarize, for any ϵ > 0 there exists σ ≥ 0 such that the single-lockdown control satisfies the above inequality. We conclude that where denotes a single-lockdown control with start time σ, duration c1/c∞, and constant intervention level c∞.
Timing. Finally, we will verify that the infimum in (11) is attained by an optimally chosen start time σ* ≥ 0. Denote Û = ∪σ≥0Ûσ where Ûσ is the set of controls such that ||u||∞ ≤ c∞ and u = 0 outside the time interval [σ, σ + c1/c∞]. Then [10, Theorem 1] implies that there exists a unique σ* ≥ 0 such that for . Therefore, by recalling the equation S(0) + I(0) − Su(∞) = γ||Iu||1., it follows that
Because Û contains all controls of the form , we conclude that
In light of (11), this confirms the statement of the theorem. □
5.2 Proof of Theorem 2
For a standard SIR model with no interventions (u = 0), it is well known that the limiting susceptible share is bounded by . By a careful reasoning (Proposition 3 in the appendix), the same bound extends to epidemics controlled by an intervention with ||u||1 < ∞. Therefore, the total incidence is bounded from below by 1 − S(∞)/S(0) ≥ 1 − γ/(βS(0)).
For the upper bound, it appears intuitively clear that the limiting susceptible share Su(∞) in an epidemic with an arbitrary control u is larger than equal than the corresponding quantity S0(∞) in an epidemic with no interventions. Indeed, Chikina and Pegden [14] have shown that a pointwise ordering of interventions u1 ≤ u2 implies under an extra assumption that u2 is nondecreasing. Straightforward modifications of the analysis in [14] show that the above implication holds also when u1 instead of u2 is required to be nondecreasing. By selecting u1 = 0 and letting u2 = u be an arbitrary piecewise continuous intervention, we find that S0(∞) ≤ Su(∞), and we conclude that the total incidence is bounded from above by 1 − Su(∞)/S(0) ≤ 1 − S0(∞)/S(0). □
Data Availability
The study uses no data
A Truncation
The appendices present technical details needed for proving Theorem 1. Appendix A contains details related to approximating a control of infinite time horizon by truncation. Appendix B contains an analysis of a frequency-modulated quantization operator. Appendix C contains a monotonicity property related to minimizing the disease burden by prolonged interventions.
A.1 Time to reach herd immunity
For an epidemic trajectory (Su, Iu) controlled by u, we denote the time at which herd immunity is reached by
The following result generalizes [7, Lemma 3.3:(2)] (and corrects a minor mistake in its proof).
For any initial state with and I(0) > 0, and any piecewise continuous control such that ||u||1 < ∞, the time to reach herd immunity is finite and bounded by
Proof. We will analyse the system on the time interval up to tH = tH(u). Observe that the logarithmic state variables evolve according to
By definition, on [0, tH]. This lower bound combined with (13) implies that (log Iu)′ ≥ −γu, and therefore on [0, tH]. By denoting and combining the above inequality with (12), it follows that (log Su)′ ≤ −βImin(1 − u) on [0, tH], so that
By noting that by the continuity of Su, we see that and the claim follows.
□
A.2 Uniform integrability
The following result shows that the collection of infectious trajectories induced by controls bounded by ||u||1 ≤ c1 is uniformly integrable.
For any β, γ > 0, any initial state with S(0) > 0 and I(0) > 0, and any c1 ≥ 0, there exist constants α, C, T* > 0 such that
Proof. (i) Proposition 3 implies that for all controls with ||u||1 ≤ c1, the time to reach herd immunity is bounded by the constant
Therefore, the susceptible share satisfies from time onwards. We will choose a slightly larger time horizon and show that for all t ≥ T* and all controls u such that ||u||1 ≤ c1, where δ = 1 − exp(−βI(0)e−γT*). To verify (15), observe first that
The crude lower bound (log Iu)′ = β(1 − u)Su − γ ≥ −γ implies that I(t) ≥ I(0)e−γT*on (0, T*). By noting that (log S)′ = −β(1 − u)I, it follows by (16) that
By noting that the right side above equals log(1 − δ), and that due to , we conclude that , and that (15) is valid.
(ii) We will next derive an upper bound for the tail integrals of Iu. By applying (15), we see that for all t > T*, so that
By integrating the above inequality, we see that
Therefore, the claim holds for α = γδ and .
□
B Quantization
We develop a frequency modulation approach to approximate a general piecewise continuous function with a square waveform having a small wavelength. Denote by U (b) the set of piecewise continuous functions u : [0, ∞) → [0, 1] such that ||u||∞ ≤ b. Given an amplitude b > 0 and wavelength h > 0, we define a quantization operator Qb,h : U (b) → U (b) by setting Qb,hu = û with where I = ∪k≥1Ik is a union of disjoint intervals Ik = [hk − τk, hk) having lengths
We will show that û approximates u well in a weak sense for small wavelengths. We first prove a general approximation property (Lemma 5), and then derive an approximation result of an epidemic trajectory controlled by û (Proposition 6).
A function ϕ : [0, ∞) → ℝ is called locally bounded if ||ϕ||∞,t = sup0≤s≤t |ϕ(s)| is finite for all t, and locally Lipschitz continuous if is finite for all t.
For any b, h > 0 and u ∈ U (b), the approximation û = Qb,hu defined by (17) satisfies ||û||1 = ||u||1, and
for all t ≥ 0 and all locally bounded and locally Lipschitz continuous ϕ.
Proof. On each interval [hk −h, hk), the quantized control alternates so that û = 0 for the first h − τk time units, and then û = b for the remaining τk time units. The choice of τk then implies that for all k ≥ 1. By summing both sides of the above equality with respect to k ≥ 1, we find that ||û||1 = ||u||1.
Let us now fix t ≥ 0. Denote and tk = kh, and observe that , where ds and . By applying (18), we find that
Because |ϕ(s) − ϕ(tk−1)| ≤ h||ϕ||Lip,t for all tk−1 < s < tk, and ||û−u||∞ ≤ b, it follows that
Furthermore, by noting that tn ≤ t < tn + h, it follows that
We conclude that
□
For any b, h > 0 and u ∈ U (b), any β, γ > 0 and any initial state with S(0), I(0) > 0, the epidemic trajectories (Su, Iu) and (Sû, Iû) associated with u and û = Qb,hu satisfy
for all t ≥ 0.
Proof. The epidemic trajectory (Su, Iu) controlled by u is the unique solution to X′(t) = f (t, X(t)), X(0) = (S(0), I(0)), where f : [0, ∞) × ℝ 2 → ℝ 2 is defined by and α (t) = β(1 − u(t)). The state space of the system is denoted by 𝒳 = {X ∈ [0, 1]2:X1+X2 ≤1} and we equip it with max norm ||X|| = max{|X1|, |X2|}. The Jacobian matrix of X → f (t, X) equals
The operator norm of the matrix ∂Xf (t, X) induced by the max norm on ℝ2 is the maximum absolute row sum, which is bounded by
Hence ||∂Xf (t, X)|| ≤ β + γ for all X ∈ 𝒳 and t ≥ 0, it follows [17, Lemma 2.2] that f is Lipschitz continuous according to
Let Y : [0, ∞) → 𝒳 be the unique solution to Y′(t) = g(t, Y (t)), Y (0) = (S(0), I(0)), where g(t, X) is defined analogously to f (t, X) but with α(t) in (19) replaced by . Then
Because X(0) = Y (0), we find that the difference Z(t) = Y (t)−X(t) satisfies
Inequality (20) shows that ||f (s, Y (s)) − f (s, X(s))|| ≤ (β + γ)||z(s)|| for all s, and we conclude that the max norm of Z(t) is bounded by where
Observe next that where ϕ(s) = Y1(s)Y2(s), and hence
We also find that and for all t ≥ 0. Therefore, |ϕ′(t)| ≤ 2(β + γ)t, and we conclude that ϕ is globally Lipschitz continuous according to |ϕ(t) − ϕ(s)| ≤ 2(β + γ)|t − s| for all s, t ≥ 0. Lemma 5 then implies that for C1 = βbh and C2 = 2βbh(β + γ). By combining this with (21), we conclude that and Grönwall’s inequality (e.g. [17, Lemma 2.1]) then implies that
Integration by parts shows that the right side equals , from which we conclude that confirming the claim.
□
C Prolongation
C.1 A special function
For any ρ > 0, the function f (x) = x ρ−1 log x is strictly decreasing on (0, ρ−1], and strictly increasing on [ρ−1, ∞), and has a unique minimum value . The restriction of f into (0, ρ−1] is invertible, and the corresponding inverse function g : [y0, ∞) → (0, ρ−1] is strictly decreasing.
Proof. Because f ′(x) = 1 − ρ−1x−1 we find that f ′(x) < 0 for s < ρ−1, and f ′(x) > 0 for x > ρ−1. Hence the stated monotonicity properties follow. It also follows that f restricted to (0, ρ−1] has a well-defined inverse function g. The inverse function rule shows that g′(y) < 0 for all y > y0, and confirms that g is strictly decreasing on [y0, ∞).
□
C.2 Prolonged interventions imply less infections
Let (S1, I2) be an epidemic trajectory controlled by u1 such that u1 = 0 outside [0, T ]. Let (S2, I2) be an epidemic trajectory with the same initial state but a modified control with T ≤ t1 ≤ t2. Then S1(∞) ≤ S2(∞).
Proof. The epidemic under a control uk evolves according to and . This implies that (Sk + Ik)′ = −γIk and (log Sk)′ = −β(1 − uk)Ik. As a consequence, we find that at every time instant in which .
Let , the vulnerability of the population under control uk. Because both controls vanish on (t2, ∞) and I1(∞) = I2(∞) = 0, we find from (22) that Because both trajectories are equal up to time t1, we see that V1(t1) = V2(t1). Because u1 = 0 on the interval (t1, t2), (22) shows that V1(t1) = V1(t2). Analogously, by noting that u2 = c on (t1, t2), it follows that which can be rewritten as
Because (S2 + I2)′ = −γI2, we see that S2(t) + I2(t) is decreasing, and therefore,
Because of (23), it follows (Lemma 7) that S1(∞) ≤ S2(∞).
□
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for financial support from project 105572 NordicMathCovid as part of the Nordic Programme on Health and Welfare funded by NordForsk.