Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigated whether the atmospheric temperature had any role in the spread and vulnerability to COVID-19 worldwide and how that knowledge can be utilized to contain the fast-spreading disease. It highlighted that temperature was an important factor in transmitting the virus, and a moderately cool environment was the most favourable state for its susceptibility. In fact, the risk from the virus is reduced significantly in high temperature environment. Warm countries and places were likely to be less vulnerable. We identified various degrees of vulnerability based on temperature and specified countries for March and April. The maximum reported case, as well as death, was noted when the temperature was in the range of around 275°K (2°C) to 290°K (17°C). Countries like the USA, UK, Italy and Spain belonged to this category. The vulnerability was moderate when the temperature was less than around 275°K (2°C) and countries in that category were Russia, parts of Canada and few Scandinavian countries. For temperature 300°K (27°C) and above, a significantly lesser degree of vulnerability was noted. Countries from SAARC, South East Asia, the African continent and Australia fell in that category. In fact, when the temperature was more than 305°K (32°C), there was a unusually low number of reported cases and deaths. For warm countries, further analyses on the degree of vulnerability were conducted for the group of countries from SAARC and South East Asia and individual countries were compared. We also showed countries can switch from one vulnerability state to another based on the variability of temperature. We provided maps of temperature to identify countries of different vulnerability states in different months of the year. That influence of temperature on the virus and previous results of clinical trials with similar viruses gave us a useful insight that regulating the level of temperature can provide remarkable results to arrest and stop the outbreak. Based on that knowledge, some urgent solutions are proposed, which are practically without side effects and very cost-effective too.
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 | 0.002 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".