Code for: Intervention Serology and Interaction Substitution: Modeling the Role of 'Shield Immunity' in Reducing COVID-19 Epidemic Spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated a global crisis, with more than 690,000 confirmed cases and more than 33,000 confirmed deaths globally as of March 30, 2020 [1-4]. At present two central public health control strategies have emerged: mitigation and suppression (e.g, [5]). Both strategies focus on reducing new infections by reducing interactions (and both raise questions of sustainability and long-term tactics). Complementary to those approaches, here we develop and analyze an epidemiological intervention model that leverages serological tests [6, 7] to identify and deploy recovered individuals as focal points for sustaining safer interactions via interaction substitution, i.e., to develop what we term 'shield immunity' at the population scale. Recovered individuals, in the present context, represent those who have developed protective, antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and are no longer shedding virus [8]. The objective of a shield immunity strategy is to help sustain the interactions necessary for the functioning of essential goods and services (including but not limited to tending to the elderly [9], hospital care, schools, and food supply) while decreasing the probability of transmission during such essential interactions. We show that a shield immunity approach may significantly reduce the length and reduce the overall burden of an outbreak, and can work synergistically with social distancing. The present model highlights the value of serological testing as part of intervention strategies, in addition to its well recognized roles in estimating prevalence [10, 11] and in the potential development of plasma-based therapies [12-15].
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.157 | 0.014 |
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".