The graphs in figure 8 show the results of varying the compliance rates. The general trend shows total attack rate decreasing as more symptomatic individuals seek some forms of diagnosis or antiviral medication. One would expect that with more people visiting the hospital, the amount of drug and testkit usage will increase as well. However, the contrary is observed for some cases, particularly for policies P4a and P4c. Under these policies, the total attack rate can drop by as much as 28.4 per cent as the compliance rates increase from 50 to 70 per cent ( policy P4c, diagnosis approach D2), and instead of seeing an increase in the medicine consumption, we get a decrease by 2.3 per cent (figure 8). Similar patterns are observed when other diagnostic approaches are implemented in tandem with P4a and P4c. We noted that the reversal of the correlation between total attack rate and cost occurs only in the presence of two conditions: (i) full contact tracing and (ii) prophylaxis of the contacts. Additionally, a high diagnosis compliance rate can be loosely associated with a lower false negative rate for viral detection. Hence, we expect measures that reduce the false negative rate to have a more significant impact on pandemic mitigation when implemented with the abovementioned conditions. The critical issue that follows is then how limited resources such as antiviral drugs and testkits can be used effectively with those conditions.