Table 2.

Associated values used for each scenario.

Social distancing		Strong ($\beta$: 63 $\%\downarrow$)	Moderate ($\beta$: 50% $\downarrow$)	Weak ($\beta$: 10 $\%\downarrow$)
Health service disruption	Low	$\mathrm{p}=9\%$	$\mathrm{p}=9\%$	$\mathrm{p}=9\%$
		1/$\gamma :5\%\mathrm{delay}$	1/$\gamma :5\%\mathrm{delay}$	1/$\gamma :5\%\mathrm{delay}$
		m: 30% delay	m: 30% delay	m: 30% delay
	Middle	$\mathrm{p}=13\%$	$\mathrm{p}=13\%$	$\mathrm{p}=13\%$
		1/$\gamma :10\%\mathrm{delay}$	1/$\gamma :10\%\mathrm{delay}$	1/$\gamma :10\%\mathrm{delay}$
		m: 50% delay	m: 50% delay	m: 50% delay
	High	$\mathrm{p}=15\%$	$\mathrm{p}=15\%$	$\mathrm{p}=15\%$
		1/$\gamma :25\%\mathrm{delay}$	1/$\gamma :25\%\mathrm{delay}$	1/$\gamma :25\%\mathrm{delay}$
		m: 60% delay	m: 60% delay	m: 60% delay

Summary of scenarios: The effect of social distancing is represented by strong, moderate, and weak levels assuming the reduction of transmission by 63%, 50%, 10%, respectively. The degree of health service disruption is denoted by low, middle, and high considering increase of treatment failures (9%, 13%, 15%), delayed diagnosis (5%, 10%, 25%), and reduction of the number of close contact management (30%, 50%, 60%).