Projecting demand for critical care beds during COVID-19 outbreaks in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in Canada may create substantial demand for hospital admission and critical care. We evaluated the extent to which self-isolation of mildly ill people delays the peak of outbreaks and reduces the need for this care in each Canadian province. METHODS: We developed a computational model and simulated scenarios for COVID-19 outbreaks within each province. Using estimates of COVID-19 characteristics, we projected the hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) bed requirements without self-isolation, assuming an average number of 2.5 secondary cases, and compared scenarios in which different proportions of mildly ill people practised self-isolation 24 hours after symptom onset. RESULTS: Without self-isolation, the peak of outbreaks would occur in the first half of June, and an average of 569 ICU bed days per 10 000 population would be needed. When 20% of cases practised self-isolation, the peak was delayed by 2-4 weeks, and ICU bed requirement was reduced by 23.5% compared with no self-isolation. Increasing self-isolation to 40% reduced ICU use by 53.6% and delayed the peak of infection by an additional 2-4 weeks. Assuming current ICU bed occupancy rates above 80% and self-isolation of 40%, demand would still exceed available (unoccupied) ICU bed capacity. INTERPRETATION: At the peak of COVID-19 outbreaks, the need for ICU beds will exceed the total number of ICU beds even with self-isolation at 40%. Our results show the coming challenge for the health care system in Canada and the potential role of self-isolation in reducing demand for hospital-based and ICU care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".