Fig 1.
Flow diagram of the mathematical model showing the transition of individuals in different compartments based on infection status (solid lines).
The dashed lines represent the potential shedding of the virus to the environment by individuals in the asymptomatic and symptomatic compartments as well as possible infection of the susceptible population from the contaminated environment at a rate dependent on the force of infection.
Table 1.
Description and values of initial model (1) parameters.
Parameter estimates were obtained from previous studies.
Table 2.
Summary of considered adherence level coverage (%) to hygiene, wearing face mask and physical distance in urban and rural population of Ethiopia for numerical simulation.
Table 3.
Summary of considered intervention mechanisms and their effect on reducing the spread of COVID-19 based on existing literature.
Table 4.
Summary of percentage change in Ro under the implementations of different NPIs with different adherence levels in the urban and rural population of Ethiopia during the first 7 months of the pandemic.
Table 5.
Summary of Ro under the implementation of different NPIs with different adherence levels in urban and rural populations of Ethiopia.
The prevalence of hygiene measures (hand washing) is assumed to be 30% and 20% in urban and rural population of Ethiopia after the first seven months.
Fig 2.
Projection of active COVID-19 cases in the urban population of Ethiopia where 30% or 40% practice hand washing and 5% (a, b), 15% (c, d) or 25% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 35% efficacy.
Fig 3.
Projection of active COVID-19 cases in the rural population of Ethiopia where 15% or 20% practice hand washing and 0% (a, b), 2% (c, d) or 5% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 20% efficacy.
Fig 4.
Projection of symptomatic and asymptomatic infectious cases in urban populations of Ethiopia when 30% or 40% practice hand washing and 5% (a, b), 15% (c, d) or 25% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 35% efficacy.
Fig 5.
Projection of symptomatic and asymptomatic infectious cases in the rural population of Ethiopia when 15% or 20% practice hand washing and 0% (a, b), 2% (c, d) or 5% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 20% efficacy.
Fig 6.
Projected number of the urban population who will need intensive care when 30% or 40% practice hand washing and 5% (a, b), 15% (c, d) or 25% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 35% efficacy.
Fig 7.
Projection of intensive care or critical cases in the rural population of Ethiopia when 15% or 20% practice hand washing and 0% (a, b), 2% (c, d) or 5% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 20% efficacy.
Fig 8.
Projection of deaths under the implementation of different NPIs when 30% or 40% practice hand washing and 5% (a, b), 15% (c, d) or 25% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 35% efficacy.
Fig 9.
Projected number of cumulative death due to COVID-19 in rural Ethiopia when 15% or 20% practice hand washing and 0% (a, b), 2% (c, d) or 5% (e, f) of the population wear face masks, with 20% efficacy.
Table 6.
Summary of predicted numbers of active COVID-19 and ICU cases (in thousands) under different adherence levels of mask and physical distancing in the urban population of Ethiopia.
Table 7.
Summary of predicted numbers of active COVID-19 and ICU cases (in thousands) under different adherence levels of mask wearing and physical distancing in the rural population of Ethiopia.
Fig 10.
Sensitivity of parameters with respect to Ro.
Table 8.
Summary of different pairs of significant parameters by accounting for the false discovery rate.
Fig 11.
Model validation.