Is it safe to lift COVID-19 travel bans? The Newfoundland story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A key strategy to prevent a local outbreak during the COVID-19 pandemic is to restrict incoming travel. Once a region has successfully contained the disease, it becomes critical to decide when and how to reopen the borders. Here we explore the impact of border reopening for the example of Newfoundland and Labrador, a Canadian province that has enjoyed no new cases since late April, 2020. We combine a network epidemiology model with machine learning to infer parameters and predict the COVID-19 dynamics upon partial and total airport reopening, with perfect and imperfect quarantine conditions. Our study suggests that upon full reopening, every other day, a new COVID-19 case would enter the province. Under the current conditions, banning air travel from outside Canada is more efficient in managing the pandemic than fully reopening and quarantining 95% of the incoming population. Our study provides quantitative insights of the efficacy of travel restrictions and can inform political decision making in the controversy of reopening. “There is one and only one way to absolutely prevent it and that is by establishing absolute isolation. It is necessary to shut off those who are capable of giving off the virus from those who are capable of being infected, or vice versa . ” The Lessons Of The Pandemic, Science 1919 .
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".