A simple approximate mathematical model to predict the number of severe acute respiratory syndrome cases and deaths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is currently spreading in many countries. This paper proposes a simple approximate mathematical model for public health practitioners to predict the number of SARS cases and deaths. METHODS: The model is based on four parameters: R(o) (basic reproductive number), F (case-fatality rate), i (incubation period), and d (duration of disease). The calculations can be done by hand or by using a computer spreadsheet. RESULTS: The best parameters to fit Canadian data as of 6 April 2003 (before infection controls took effect) are R(o) = 1.5, F = 30%, i = 5 days, d = 14 days. On 6 April (day 40) there were 74 cases and 7 deaths. If this trend continues, SARS numbers in Canada are predicted to be as follows: 387 cases and 34 deaths by 26 April (day 60), 4432 cases and 394 deaths by 26 May (day 90), and 50 500 cases and 4489 deaths by 25 June (day 120). By comparison, the best parameters to fit Hong Kong data as of 10 April 2003 are R(o) = 2.0, F = 20%, i = 5 days, d = 14 days. CONCLUSIONS: Using the proposed mathematical model, it was estimated that about 1.5 to 2 new infectious cases were produced per infectious case every five days. Also, about 20% to 30% of the cases die within 14 days. The case-fatality may therefore be considerably higher than initially thought. The model indicates that SARS can spread very fast when there are no interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".