Analysis of Potential Risk of COVID-19 Infections in China Based on a Pairwise Epidemic Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia (also known as COVID-19) has triggered a series of stringent control measures in China, such as city closure, traffic restrictions, contact tracing and household quarantine. These containment efforts often lead to changes in the contact pattern among individuals of the population. Many existing compartmental epidemic models fail to account for the effects of contact structure. In this paper, we devised a pairwise epidemic model to analyze the COVID-19 outbreak in China based on confirmed cases reported during the period February 3rd--17th, 2020. By explicitly incorporating the effects of family clusters and contact tracing followed by household quarantine and isolation, our model provides a good fit to the trajectory of COVID-19 infections and is useful to predict the epidemic trend. We obtained the average of the reproduction number $R=1.494$ ($95\%$ CI: $1.483-1.507$) for Hubei province and $R=1.178$ ($95\%$ CI: $1.145-1.158$) for China (except Hubei), suggesting that some existing studies may have overestimated the reproduction number by neglecting the dynamical correlations and clustering effects. We forecasted that the COVID-19 epidemic would peak on February 13th ($95\%$ CI: February $9-17$th) in Hubei and 6 days eariler in the regions outside Hubei. Moreover the epidemic was expected to last until the middle of March in China (except Hubei) and late April in Hubei. The sensitivity analysis shows that ongoing exposure for the susceptible and population clustering play an important role in the disease propagation. With the enforcement of household quarantine measures, the reproduction number $R$ effectively reduces and epidemic quantities decrease accordingly. Furthermore, we gave an answer to the public concern on how long the stringent containment strategies should maintain. Through numerical analysis, we suggested that the time for the resumption of work and production in China (except Hubei) and Hubei would be the middle of March and the end of April, 2020, respectively. These constructive suggestions may bring some immeasurable social-economic benefits in the long run.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".